The People’s Education Society v. Dr. K. Sudhakar Reddy

(ii) Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & ors.[2]

(iii) Rajendra s/o Radhakisan Rau vs. State of Maharashtra[3]

(iv) Dynanganga Shikshan Sanstha & ors. vs. State of Maharashtra[4]

(v) State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh[5]

(vi) Rahul s/o. Virendra Deshmukh vs. State of Maharashtra[6]

(vii) M. M. Malhotra vs. Union of India 7

4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Respondent No. 1 was guilty on counts of misconduct, misappropriation of funds and fraud. He submitted that actions of the Respondent No. 1 have tainted the prestigious society/trust i. e. the Petitioner –Trust which has been founded by Late Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar for the purpose of giving educational facilities to the students belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe society, their upliftment and education. He, therefore, submitted that in this background of the matter, the learned Tribunal should not have interfered with the Order of the Petitioner – Trust, by which Respondent No. 1 has been compulsory retired.

5. In this Writ Petition, Respondent No. 1 has filed detailed

Anand Page No. 8 affidavit-in-reply dated 24.06.2023. In the said affidavit-in-reply, it is stated by the Respondent No. 1 that he was working as Associate professor and was appointed in a clear vacancy w.e.f. 25.07.2006. He has completed 17 years of service with Ph. D. degree, UGC NET Certificate and promoted as Associate Professor. He is eligible to be appointed as permanent Principal of Law College. He has been appointed as In-charge Principal of Siddharth College of Law, Mumbai in December, 2012. He submitted that said Anandraj Ambedkar claims to be the Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust. However, said Anandraj Ambedkar is not the trustee as per the records of the Charity Commissioner and as his name does not appear in Schedule – I, he cannot act as Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that there is a dispute regarding management of the Petitioner – Trust and particularly, regarding Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust. It is stated that Professor (Dr.) Bhalchandra Mungekar, Mr. Ramdas Athawale, Mr. S. P. Gaikwad and Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar, all of them claim to be the Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust. He has stated that since the management of the Petitioner – Trust was disputed and as there is a serious dispute about the management of the Petitioner – Trust, the Government of Maharashtra by letter dated 07.06.2014 decided to appoint Senior Most Professor as Incharge Principal of the College and declared that Respondent No. 1 is Anand Page No. 9 the Senior Most Professor and directed the University of Mumbai to appoint him as In-charge Principal. Accordingly, the University of Mumbai vide letter dated 24.02.2015 appointed Respondent No. 1 as In-charge of Respondent No. 7 – Siddharth College of Law. It is stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that in August, 2018, the disputes amongst different groups of management were escalated and as a result of which Mr. S. P. Gaikwad who claimed to be the Chairman issued suspension Order on 04.08.2018 placing Respondent No. 1 under suspension. At that time, said Mr. S. P. Gaikwad issued a letter in favour of librarian - Ms. Sandhya Dokhe appointing her as In-charge Principal and the same has been approved by the University of Mumbai vide letter dated 27.08.2018. He has pointed out the Resolution dated 06.10.2018 passed by the University of Mumbai, by which it is recorded that from the correspondence with the Charity Commissioner, it is clear that none of the trustees have any authority to take decision in respect of the day to day administration of the Colleges and till the entire dispute is resolved in the larger interest of the students, as per the directions issued by the State of Maharashtra, In-charge Principal should be appointed on the basis of seniority. Accordingly, management council of the University of Mumbai by the said Resolution dated 06.10.2018, resolved to maintain status-quo as on 11.06.2018 and accordingly, Respondent No. 1 has been reinstated as In-charge Anand Page No. 10 Principal by letter dated 12.10.2018 by cancelling appointment of Ms. Sandhya Dokhe. Thus, it is stated in the said affidavit-in-reply, on the basis of the said letter dated 12.10.2018 of the University of Mumbai, Respondent No. 1 continued to act as In-charge Principal of the Siddharth College of Law. On 07.01.2020, librarian – Ms. Sandhya Dokhe broke open the lock of the Principal’s cabin with the help of outsiders and illegally took the possession of all the documents, money and other record including personal belongings of Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, complaint has been lodged with the police authorities on 13.01.2020. It is stated that from 07.01.2020, said Ms. Sandhya Dokhe started acting as In-charge Principal of the Siddharth College of Law. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that on 19.01.2021, the University of Mumbai appointed Respondent No. 1 as In-charge of the Siddharth College of Law. Thereafter, the University of Mumbai by further letter dated 27.01.2021 stayed earlier letter dated 19.01.2021. Reliance is also placed in the said affidavit-in-reply on the Judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of this Court dated 05.09.2018 passed in W. P. NO. 2805 of 2018. Reliance is also placed on the Orders passed by the University Tribunal, Aurangabad, Aurangabad Bench of this Court and on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shivaji Suryawanshi. It is submitted that action taken against Dr. Shivaji Suryawanshi has been set aside on the ground that said Mr. Anandraj Anand Page No. 11 Ambedkar has no locus to act on behalf of the Petitioner – Trust. It is stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that despite knowledge, he has no authority to act as Chairman. Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar illegally acted as Chairman and issued various orders against the employees who did not co-operate with him to misuse college funds. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that since the management & governing body of the Petitioner – Trust is disputed, therefore, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has no authority to conduct any enquiry and despite that an enquiry was conducted and Respondent No. 1 was issued an order of compulsory retirement by said Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar. In the said affidavit-inreply, reliance is also placed on the Orders dated 10.09.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner and 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Charity Commissioner rejecting the Change Reports in respect of addition of the names of Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat and Dr. M. P. Mangudkar.

6. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 pointed out various documents which are referred to and relied in the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1. He submitted that as the Petitioner was inducted as trustee and thereafter, appointed as Chairman by Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat and Dr. M. P. Mangudkar vide Change Report dated 22.06.2013, however, the said Change Report was rejected by the Anand Page No. 12 learned Deputy Charity Commissioner vide Order dated 10.09.2012. He submitted that therefore, any Change Report filed by them is invalid. He submitted that Appeal filed by these persons has also been rejected by the learned Charity Commissioner by Order dated 12.05.2023. He submitted that although the Second Appeal has been filed challenging the same, there is no stay granted in the said Second Appeal. He also relied on the decisions of various Courts including Aurangabad Bench and Supreme Court as referred in the affidavit-inreply filed by Respondent No. 1. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is warranted in the impugned Order under the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

(i) Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 vs. A. Radha Krishna

(ii) M. V. Bijlani vs. Union of India And Others, reported in (2006) 5

8. He submitted the Writ Petition be dismissed.

9. Mr. Mahadeshwar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 relied on the affidavit-in-reply dated 12.07.2023 of the Respondent No.2. In Anand Page No. 13 the said affidavit-in-reply, apart from the contentions which have been raised by Respondent No. 1, it is stated that in terms of the directions as contained in clause No. 4 of the operative part of the impugned Order dated 10.01.2023, said Anandraj Ambedkar has, in fact, approached the Assistant Charity Commissioner by filing an Application seeking relief under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (“M.P.T. Act”) being Misc. Application No. 23 of 2023. He pointed out paragraph Nos.6, 8 and 9 of the Application filed under Section 41A of the M.P.T. Act. He also pointed out paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the Affidavit-in-Reply and submitted that the Petition challenging the Order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Mumbai University & College Tribunal is required to be dismissed.

10. Mr. Mahadeshwar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 pointed out Statute 409 and more particularly, definition of governing body as set out in the said Statute at Clause (xvi). On the basis of the same, it is his contention that the governing body i. e. the body which actually conducts the affairs of a college has to be recognized by the University for the purpose of these Statutes as Employer. He pointed out procedure for imposing major penalties, as contained in Statute No. 444(A). He also pointed out Statute NO. 444(J) and also Statue No. 413(2). He submitted that therefore, said Anandraj Ambedkar could not have taken action on behalf of the Anand Page No. 14 Petitioner – Trust. He pointed out letter dated 12.06.2014 (Page NO. 145) and letter dated 25.08.2015 (Page No. 149) of the University of Mumbai, by which Respondent No. 1 has been nominated by the University of Mumbai to conduct affairs of the Siddharth College of Law. He pointed out Section 13 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. He pointed out Point No. 4 framed by the learned Tribunal and pointed out discussion of the learned Tribunal concerning said Point No. 4 from Page No. 97 on wards. He pointed out paragraph NO. 25 of the learned Tribunal’s Order. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has been recognized by the University of Mumbai, as contemplated under the Statute. He relied on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Murlidhar s/o Janrao Kale and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 849 and more particularly, on paragraph No. 12 of the same. He relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. C. Bernard, reported in (1991)1 SCC 319 and more particularly on paragraph Nos. 3 & 7 of the same. He, therefore, submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is warranted in the impugned Order. He, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition be dismissed.

11. Mr. Swaraj Jadhav, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 & 7 pointed out the observations of the learned Tribunal in paragraph Nos. Anand Page No. 15 52 to 55 and also pointed out Section 83 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has found that the allegations against Respondent No. 1 are very serious and therefore, learned Tribunal should have used the power under Section 83(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 which empowers the learned Tribunal to direct payment of compensation not exceeding six months in case, the learned Tribunal has decided not to reinstate an employee. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Tribunal should have passed the Order of compensation. He relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation And Another vs. K. C. Rahi, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 502 and more particularly on paragraph No. 8 of the same. He submitted that as Respondent No. 1 has not participated in the enquiry, he waived his right to raise the issue of violation of principles of natural justice. He also relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y. P. Education Society and others, reported in 2013(6) SCC 515 and more particularly on para No. 17 of the same. He submitted that as Respondent No. 1 has not participated in the enquiry and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the Respondent No.1. He, therefore, submitted that the Order of reinstatement of the learned Tribunal may be quashed and set aside Anand Page No. 16 and the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for considering the relief under Section 83(2)(e) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016(“M.P. U. Act”).

12. Thus, the following points are raised for consideration by this Court: A) Whether Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has authority to act as Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust? B) Whether the Respondent No.1 has waived his right to raise point of violation of the principles of natural justice as he has not participated in the inquiry? C) Whether instead of relief of reinstatement the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation as per Section 83(2)(e) of the M.P. U. Act to the Respondent No.1? (A) Whether Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has authority to act as Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust?

13. The factual position for consideration of this point is as follows: i. On 29.06.2012, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar was inducted as member of the governing body and as Chairman by four governing body members namely Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Dr. M. P. Anand Page No. 17 Mangudkar and Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat. ii. Accordingly, Change Report Nos. 2860 and 2861 of 2013 have been submitted to the learned Charity Commissioner and the same are pending. iii. The Change Reports regarding appointment of Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Dr. M. P. Mangudkar and Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat as members of Governing Body were rejected by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner by Order dated 10.09.2012 passed in CC/3/2013. iv. Said Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Dr. M. P. Mangudkar and Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat challenged the said Order dated 10.09.2012 by filing Appeal No. CC/3/2013 before the learned Charity Commissioner and the said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.05.2023. v. The said Orders dated 10.09.2012 and 12.05.2023 are challenged by filing the Second Appeal (ST) No. 25487 of 2023. However, till date there is no stay granted to the said orders.

14. It is the contention of Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that Anandraj Ambedkar is the Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust and accordingly, said Anandraj Ambedkar is competent to take decision and therefore, impugned Order of compulsory retirement of Respondent No. 1 has been legally passed. Anand Page No. 18 He has emphasized on two factors: (a) First, the Change Report Nos. 2860 and 2861 of 2013 filed concerning his induction as member of the governing body and as Chairman are still pending before the learned Charity Commissioner. Therefore, unless the same are decided, he continues to be the Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust. He submitted that if said Change Reports are rejected then only his appointment as the Chairman will become illegal. To substantiate the said contention, he has relied on the Judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Chembur Trombay Education Society and others (Supra); (b) Second, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has been inducted as member of the governing body and as Chairman on 29.06.2012 by four governing body members namely Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr. D. G. Deshkar, Dr. M. P. Mangudkar and Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat. The Change Reports concerning appointment of these members as members of the governing body were subsequently rejected on 10.09.2012. It is his submission that when he was inducted as member of the Governing Body and elected as Chairman the said four members were validly appointed members of the Governing Body and therefore, the subsequent rejection of said Change Report is inconsequential. He submits that the said Orders rejecting said Change Report are challenged by filing the said Second Appeal (L) No. 25487 of 2023 and Anand Page No. 19 the Second Appeal is pending in this Court. Thus, the dispute concerning the same is subjudice.

15. The contention raised by Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Senior Counsel is that when Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar was appointed, these persons were legally appointed as governing body members and therefore, his appointment is legal. To appreciate the submission of Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it is necessary to examine the scheme of the M.P.T. Act concerning the aspect of Change Report. i. Section 17 of the M.P.T. Act provides that in every Public Trusts Registration Office or Joint Public Trusts Registration Office, it shall be the duty of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge to keep and maintain such books, indices and other registers as may be prescribed. ii. Such books, indices and registers shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Rules (“the M. P. T. Rules”) provides that in every Public Trusts Registration Office or Joint Public Trusts Registration Office there shall be maintained a Register of Public Trusts in the form of Schedule I in respect of public trusts registered or deemed to be registered under the Act. iii. Schedule I of the said Rules provides that the said register shall Anand Page No. 20 mention name of the trust, names of trustees and managers with their addresses, mode of succession to trusteeship and managership, object of the trust, particulars of the documents creating the trust, movable property, immovable property of the trust, income expenditure of the trust, particulars of the scheme, if any of the trust etc. iv. Section 22 of the M. P. T. Act provides that where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, or where any change is desired in such entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, report such change or proposed change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge of the Public Trusts Registration Office where the register is kept. v. Sub Section (2) of Section 22 provides that for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner. vi. Rule 7 of the M.P.T. Rules provides that such inquiry shall be held, as far as possible, in the Greater Bombay Region in Anand Page No. 21 accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of suits under the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882, and elsewhere under the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887. In any inquiry a party may appear in person or by his recognised agent or by a pleader duly appointed to act on his behalf.

16. Thus, the scheme of the M.P.T. Act and M.P.T. Rules specifies that the change which has occurred to be reported to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge of the Public Trusts Registration Office where the register under Section 17 is kept within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change. Thereafter, enquiry is to be conducted under Section 22(2) for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the register kept under Section 17 or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the particulars recorded in the register. Thus, as per the scheme of the M.P.T. Act read with M.P.T. Rules, change occurs as soon as the same takes effect. The scope of Section 22 is only to ascertain whether the change has occurred or not and the correctness of such change.

17. In view of the above scheme of the M.P.T. Act read with M.P.T. Rules regarding the aspect of change as contemplated under Section 17 read with Section 22 of the M.P.T. Act and relevant M.P.T. Rules, it is necessary to set out the relevant discussion in Chembur Trombay Education Society and others (supra) as follows:- Anand Page No. 22 “11. …… The law with regard to the efficacy of any change brought about and its application is no more res integra. The Apex Court in decision reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C.W. 3006; (Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School and another v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and another), has considered this aspect of the matter. The Apex Court was called upon to examine similar provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The scheme of section 12-A of that Act is more or less same as section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Apex Court compared the said provision with the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the Companies Act which mandate that the alteration or amendment to the Memorandum of Association of the Company takes effect from the date of its registration only. In that context the Apex Court in para 11 of the said judgment has observed that in absence of any requirement in the Act that the alteration in the Rules and Regulations must be registered with the Registrar, it cannot be held that registration of the amendment is a condition precedent for such an altercation to come into effect. A priori, any amendment or change brought about in accordance with law would come into effect from the date of resolution of the Society to bring about such a change. This proposition is fortified from the plain language of section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The said section requires that where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the register kept under section 17, the trustee shall, within 90 days from the date of the occurrence of such change, report such change to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner, as the case may be. The dictionary meaning of expression “occur” as observed in the Black’s Law Dictionary is: “To happen; to meet one’s eyes; to be found or met with; to present itself; to appear; hence, to befall in due course; to take place; to arise.” Giving the natural meaning to this word in section 22 of the Act, coupled with the principle enunciated by the Apex Court that when the Act does not require that registration of any change is a condition precedent to come into effect, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the amendment to the constitution as well as Anand Page No. 23 subsequent elections of the President and members of the Governing Council, therefore, came into effect from the date of the respective resolutions of the general body. The enquiry postulated under section 22 is only to ascertain the factum as to whether the change has occurred or not. In the event, the competent authority is satisfied that the change has not occurred in accordance with law, only then that change will have to be undone and status quo ante will have to restored. ……….”

18. Thus, it is very clear that any change occurs as soon as the same takes effect. If after holding inquiry as contemplated under Section 22 of the M.P.T. Act read with Rule 7 of the said M.P.T. Rules, it is held that the change has not occurred in accordance with law or there is no change as reported, only then that change will have to be undone and status quo ante will have to be restored.

19. If the facts of this case are examined on the touchstone of the above legal position, then, admittedly, the governing body members Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat, who inducted Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as member of the Governing Body and as Chairman on 29.06.2012 cannot be deemed to be the members of the Governing Body on 29.06.2012, as the Change Report concerning them have been rejected on 10.09.2012 and the said Orders have been upheld in the Appeal. Although in the Second Appeal (L) No. 25487 of 2023, challenge to those Orders is pending, as pointed out by learned Counsel for the Anand Page No. 24 Respondents the said Orders have not been yet stayed. Thus, the effect of rejection of Change Report concerning inclusion of said members Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat as the members of the Governing Body of the Petitioner-Trust is that the date on which they inducted Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as member of the Governing Body and as Chairman, they were not the members of the Governing Body. Therefore, they have no authority to induct Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as member of the Governing Body and select him as Chairman. Thus, it cannot be said that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar is validly and legally appointed as member of the Governing Body of the Petitioner-Trust and validly and legally selected as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust. Thus, it is clear that actions taken by said Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar are without any authority of law. These conclusions are inevitable in view of the scheme of the M.P.T. Act read with M.P.T. Rules concerning change which has happened in the entries in the register kept under Section 17 and in terms of law laid down by the learned Single Judge in Chembur Trombay Education Society and others (Supra), as the effect of non-acceptance of the Change Reports is that change will have to be undone and status-quo ante will have to be restored.

20. Although Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has raised the contention that the Change Report with Anand Page No. 25 respect to Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar is still pending, therefore, till the same Change Report is decided, it cannot be said that he has not been validly appointed as member of the governing body and as Chairman. Although there is substance in the said contention in the light of the law laid down in Chembur Trombay Education Society and others (Supra) wherein it is held that change occurs immediately and till the competent authority decides that change has not occurred in accordance with law till that time, it is assumed that change has occurred, however, in this case, the basis of induction of Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as member of the governing body and electing him as Chairman itself has been undone and the status-quo has been restored. It is very clear that the said 4 members i.e. said Mr. V. M. Pradhan, Dr.

D. G. Deshkar, Dr. M. P. Mangudkar and Professor Mr. S. L. Bhagwat, cannot be assumed to be the members of Governing Body when they elected Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar to be a member of Governing Council and elected him as Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust on 29.06.2012. Thus, it is very clear that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has no legal authority to act as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust. It is clarified that these observations are made only for the purpose of ascertaining whether Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar can validly act as Chairman of the Petitioner – Trust and the Change Report Nos. 2860 and 2861 of 2013 concerning his appointment can be decided by the learned Charity Anand Page No. 26 Commissioner independently.

21. In view of the above position concerning appointment of Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as the member of Governing Body and as Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust, the submissions of Mr. Mahadeshwar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 are required to be appreciated. He pointed out Statute No. 409 of the University of Bombay. In Statute No. 409, definitions of various terms are set out. Clause No.

(xvi) of statute No. 409 is as follows:

22. The position on record shows that as there are four factions who claim to be the legitimate and legal governing body of the Petitioner – Trust i.e. led by Professor (Dr.) Bhalchandra Mungekar, Mr. Ramdas Athawale, Mr. S. P. Gaikwad and Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar respectively, the State Government by letter dated 07.06.2014 directed that senior most professor of the College should be appointed as an authorized Anand Page No. 27 person and accordingly, appointed Respondent No. 1 as In-charge Principal.

23. It is further significant to note that the University of Mumbai also by it’s decision dated 24.02.2015 decided to appoint senior most professor as an authorized person to conduct the affairs of the College. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 has been appointed as authorized person. Said letter dated 24.02.2015 of the University of Mumbai is very important and significant. The relevant portion of said letter dated 24.02.2015 of Registrar of University of Mumbai reads as under: “”mijksDr fo”k;kP;k lanHkkZr vki.kkal fofnr vkgs dh] fofo/k O;oLFkkiu xV fiiYl,T;qds’ku lkslk;VhP;k egkfon;ky;kP;k izkpk;Z inkackcr nkos djhr vkgsr- fiiYl,T;qds’ku lkslk;VhP;k O;oLFkkiu eaMGkps v/;{k@lfpo dks.k;kckcrpk okn ek- mPp U;k;ky;kr] ek- /kEkZnk; vk;qDr;kapsdMs U;k;izfo”B vkgsr-;k vuq”kaxkus fon;kihBkus ek- /keZnk; vk;qDr;kauk lnj laLFksps v/;{k @lfpo;kckcr fopkj.kk dsyh vlrk lnj izdj.kkoj vn;kih fu.kZ; >kyk ulY;kps R;kaP;krQsZ dGfo.;kr vkys vkgs- ojhy laLFksrhy egkfon;ky;kaP;k osxosxG;k xVkadMwu fon;kihBkl fofo/k rdzkjh izkIr >kysY;k vkgsr rlsp izk/;kidkaps osru u feGkY;kcnnyP;k rdzkjh vkgsr- R;kpizek.ks lnj rdzkjhackcr ‘kkluLrjko:u lq/nk fopkj.kk dj.;kr vkysyh vkgs-;k laLFkkvarZxr oknkaeqGs egkfon;ky;krhy deZpkjh o fon;kFkhZ ckf/kr gksr vlY;kus mijksDr lanHkkZf/ku i= dz-1 vUo;s vki.k dGfoysY;k lsokT;s”B f’k{kdkauk fon;kihBkdMwu izkf/kd`r dj.;kr vkysys gksrsmijksDr lanHkkZf/ku i= dz- 2 vUo;s vki.kkal vls dGfo.;kr;srs dh] fiiYl,T;qds’ku lkslk;VhP;k 1½ fl/nkFkZ dkWyst vkWQ vkVZl] dkWelZ vW.M lk;Ul] cq/n Hkou] QksVZ] eqacbZ &400 001 2½ fl/nkFkZ dkWyst vkWQ dkWelZ vW.M bdksukWfeDl] 348 vkuan Hkou] Mh-,u- jksM] eqacbZ& 400 023 o 4½ MkW- ckcklkgsc vkacsMdj fo/kh egkfon;ky;] oMkGk] eqacbZ;k egkfon;ky;krhy fon;kFkZhZ o deZpkjh;kaps fgr y{kkr ?ksÅy f’k{kd o f’k{kdsrj deZpk&;kaps osru] fuoRrh osru vnk dj.ks rlsp egkfon;ky;krhy fon;kF;kZaps uqdlku gksÅ u;s u;s;k n`f”Vdksukrwu fon;kF;kZa’kh lacaf/kr egRokps nSuafnu dkedkt dj.;kdfjrk rkRiqjR;k Lo:ikr efgU;kdfjrk fdaok keZnk; vk;qDrkadMwu laca/khr laLFksP;k lapkyd eaMGkpk fu.kZ; gksbZi;Zar vk/kh ?kMsy R;k vUo;s [kkyhy lsokT;s”B f’k{kdkauk ojhy ckchackcr dke dj.;klkBh izkf/kd`r dj.;kr Anand Page No. 28;sr vkgs- English translation of the above is as follows: “In connection with the aforesaid subject, you are aware that, various Management Groups are making their claims about the posts of Principal of the Colleges being run by the Peoples’ Education Society. The dispute on the issue as to who is the Chairman / Secretary of the Management Board of the Peoples’ Education Society are pending before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as well as before the Hon’ble Charity Commissioner. In this connection, when the University Officials made enquiry with the office of the Hon’ble Charity Commissioner as to who is the Chairman / Secretary of the said Institution, it was informed by his office that no decision has yet been taken in the said matter. The University has received various complaints from various groups functioning in the Colleges of the said Institution. Moreover, there are complaints received about the Professors not getting their salaries. Over and above, enquiry about the said complaints has been made even at level of the Government. On account of the disputes in the said Institution, the interest of the employees and of the students from the Colleges is being affected adversely and therefore, the Professors, senior in service, whose names had been informed by you under the Letter referred to at Sr. No.1 above, had been authorised by the University in that regard. By the Letter under Reference at Sr. No.2 above, you are informed that, taking into consideration the interest of the employees working and the students studying in the Colleges viz. (1) Siddharth College of Arts, Commerce and Science, Buddha Bhavan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, (2) Siddharth College of Commerce and Economics, 348, Anand Bhavan, D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, (3) Siddharth College of Law, Anand Bhavan, Dr. D. N. Road, Mumbai – 400 023 and (4) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar College of Law, Wadala, Mumbai, being managed by the Peoples’ Education Society and also from the view point of carrying out the works viz. making payment of salary, Anand Page No. 29 pension to the Professors and Non-teaching Staff Members and also for carrying out the important day-today works related to the students of the said Colleges so that they do not suffer any loss in their education, the below named Professors, senior in service, are authorised for carrying out the aforesaid works, on temporary basis for the period of a month or till the time the Charity Commissioner takes a decision in respect of the Board of Directors (Management Board) of the said Institution, whichever happens earlier.”

24. Thus, above letter makes it very clear that as the dispute is pending with the Charity Commissioner about the legal and valid management of the Petitioner-Trust some interim arrangement is made to conduct the day to day functioning of the Trust. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar is the validly appointed Chairman as contemplated by clause No.(xvi) of Statute No.409 of the University of Mumbai.

25. There are subsequent Orders, by which Respondent No. 4 has been appointed as an authorized person. However, what is important to note is that both, the State Government and University of Mumbai have recognized that in view of the dispute amongst rival groups, the affairs of the Petitioner – Trust will have to be conducted by senior most professor of the College. Thus, Mr. Mahadeshwar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 is right in submitting that as per Clause (xvi) of Statute No. 409, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar cannot be held to be an Anand Page No. 30 authorized person to conduct affairs of the College and take action as done by him.

26. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 is right in pointing out the Order dated 19.09.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 13966 of 2021 along with W. P. No. 4020 of 2022 and relied more particularly on paragraph No. 13 of the same. The reference is regarding the dispute in the management and that the dispute is pending before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The said observations are concerning the same institution i.e. the Petitioner - The People’s Education Society. The said Order of a learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2022 has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by Order dated 27.01.2023 passed in S.L.P. No.2178 of 2022. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the decision to initiate an enquiry and compulsory retirement of Respondent No. 1 was not taken by the Competent Authority and there is no perversity or illegality in the said finding.

27. It is also relevant to note as pointed out by the Respondent No.2 in the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 12.07.2023 that in terms of the directions as contained in clause No.4 of the operative part of the impugned Order dated 10.01.2023, the said Anandraj Ambedkar has, in fact, approached the Assistant Charity Commissioner by filing an Application seeking relief under Section 41A of the M.P.T. Act being Anand Page No. 31 Misc. Application No.23 of 2023. It is relevant to note paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 of the said affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.2. The said paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 read as under: “5. In the said Application No. 23 of 2023, filed under Section 41A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has stated as under:

6. I say that it is pertinent to note that in the said Application No. 23 of 2023 filed under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has submitted that he may be authorized to conduct de novo disciplinary inquiry against the Respondent No. 1, without any reference to the legality and validity of the pending Change Reports and without conferring any legal status to any Trustee including Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar. I say that in view of the said Application No. 23 of 2023, made by Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar under Section 41-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the above Petition deserves to be dismissed. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-A is a copy of the Application No. 23 of 2023, filed by Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.”

28. Thus, the above position clearly establishes following aspects: i. Although by the impugned order dated 10.01.2023 of the learned Tribunal order by which the Respondent No.1 has been compulsorily retired and the impugned enquiry are quashed and set aside and it has been directed that the Respondent No.1 be reinstated to the post of Associate Professor held by him, it is further directed that considering the seriousness of the allegations the Petitioner is granted Anand Page No. 33 liberty to obtain orders from the charity Commissioner under section

41 A with regard to the temporary appointment for management of the trust until the change reports are decided and thereafter, such competent person is at liberty to take decision, to issue fresh show cause notice, to hold preliminary enquiry as may be necessary and take appropriate action against the Respondents as per law. ii. The Petitioner-Anandraj Ambedkar has acted in terms of directions as contained in clause No.4 of the impugned order of the Tribunal and actually filed Application under Section 41A of the M.P.T. Act. Thus, the above aspects are also relevant for not interfereing in findings of the learned Tribunal that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has no authority to act as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust.

29. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is held that finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar has no authority to act as the Chairman of the Petitioner-Trust is proper and legal. (B) The Respondent No.1 has waived his right to raise point of violation of the principles of natural justice as he has not participated in the inquiry.

30. For appreciating this point, it is necessary to set out herein below the discussion of the learned Tribunal in paragraph Nos.45 to 52, Anand Page No. 34 which reads as under: “45. These disputes about the trusteeship had gone to various fora in various matters including in the Writs of the Hon’ble High Court. There is consistent view that the disputes are still pending and no specific opinion can be expressed as to who has a better prima facie case. Parties have not appeared before the Jt. Charity Commissioner for orders u/s 41-A to direct 1 of the trustees to manage the affairs of the trust and its institutions.

46. On taking over all view of record I find that Mr. Talwatkar and Mr. V. M. Pradhan as Deputy Chairman Mr. S.P. Gaikwad, Mr. Munagkar and Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as Chairman have issued letters and orders disclosing that they were assuming themselves to be in the management of trust. The evidence on record is not sufficient to hold Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar, respondent No. 2 as prima facie in the management of trust or otherwise. In fact the material on record does not disclose as to who is in the management of the trust, It is pitiable condition particularly in respect of the trust created by none other than the constitution maker Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. I am unable to accept the contention of learned advocate Sangraj Rupwate that respondent No. 2 is in de facto management of the trust.

47. Even if it is assumed that group laid by Anandraj was in the management of the trust. He should have produced the resolution of the governing body of the decision to initiate enquiry against the appellant and also the copy of resolution whereby the action of compulsory retirement was finalized. The governing body could not have delegated its powers to the chairman to take such decision. In absence of copies of resolutions in the light of specific challenge it is not shown that the action was taken by the competent authority.

48. Even the record does not show that the University or the Jt. Director of Higher Education or any other competent authority has recognized Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar as a Chairman of the Trust the appointments of Sandya Doke or the appellant as in-charge authorized Anand Page No. 35 signatory is on the basis of seniority and not on the basis of the recognition of any group. Even otherwise, the said appointments does not disclose any recognition by the University to any group as the Governing Body within the meaning of statute 409 (xvi) as employer.

49. It is unfortunate that this premier institute established by Dr. Ambedkar for providing education to socially backward class is intermingled in internal disputes and is on the verge of collapse. The trustees. should have fulfilled their social responsibility keeping aside their personal interests and should have given a governing body to run the trust and the institute. But when the trustees failed in the duties, it was the responsibility of the offices of Charity Commissioner to control the damage by deciding the change reports expeditiously and if necessary, appoint a person in management of the trust by passing order under section 41 A. It is no doubt, true that the parties and some time their advocates might have created several obstacles in early determination of change reports but it is essential for the very existence of this premier institute.

50. I hold that the decision to initiate enquiry and to compulsorily retire the appellant was not taken by the competent authority and answer point No.3 in the negative. Point No. 4 Violation of Principles of natural justice

51. The enquiry proceedings disclose that Mr. Sanjeev Baudhankar was examined as witness No. 3. He was secretary of the trust. He deposed that the governing body in meeting dated 30th January 2020 resolved to comply the directions of the University. He was part of the Governing body the original resolutions of the governing body for taking decision to initiate enquiry and for taking the final action are not produced. Mr. Boudhankar if examined as a witness should have dissociated himself from the decision making process. When such allegation was made the management ought to have produced resolution showing such dissociation, Thus, Mr. Boudhankar has acted as Judge in his own cause. Thus the principle of natural justice was violated.

52. Besides, though the enquiry officer is a retired Anand Page No. 36 district Judge, substantial charges (page 361-365) are vague besides some evidence not related to the charge (showing wrong date of appointment by the appellant) was also considered. To that much extent there is violation of principle of natural justice, Hence I answer point No. 4 in the affirmative.”

31. The Petitioner has not pointed out that the above observations of the learned Tribunal are not in accordance with the record. The learned Tribunal has held that as there is basic lack of competency in passing the Order of termination, the Appeal is required to be allowed with a direction to reinstate and continue the Respondent No.1 in service to the post of Associate Professor. Apart from the factors which have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, one more factor which is required to be taken into consideration is that it is the contention of Respondent No. 1 that action has been taken against him by Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar, as Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar wanted complete control of the institution in illegal manner. Although there may be some substance in the contention regarding findings recorded by the learned Tribunal as set out in paragraph No.51 concerning Mr. Sanjeev Baudhankar, however, taking overall view of the matter and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be held that the Respondent No.1 has waived his right to raise point of violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground that he has not Anand Page No. 37 participated in the enquiry.

(C) Whether instead of relief of reinstatement the learned Tribunal should have granted compensation as per Section 83(2)(e) of the M.P. U. Act to the Respondent No.1?

32. With respect to the submission that instead of reinstating the Respondent No. 1, compensation in terms of Section 83(2) of the M.P.U. Act should have been granted to him, it is necessary to consider relevant discussion of the learned Tribunal as to be found in paragraph Nos.54 to 57 of the impugned order, which reads as under:

33. Apart from the factors which have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal, one more factor which is required to be taken into consideration is that it is the contention of Respondent No. 1 that action has been taken against him by Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar, as Mr. Anandraj Ambedkar wanted complete control of the institution in illegal manner. Thus, in the facts and circumstances there are valid reasons for non-participation of the Respondent No.1 in the enquiry. In any case, the learned Tribunal has given valid reasons and taken possible view of the matter and granted relief of reinstatement and not compensation and granted Petitioner opportunity to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.1 after obtaining order under Section 41A of the M.P.T. Act of appointment of temporary Anand Page No. 40 management. It is required to be noted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the serious charges levelled against the Respondent No.1, however in the peculiar facts and circumstances granted the relief of reinstatement with the liberty to the Petitioner to conduct disciplinary enquiry after obtaining order under Section 41A of the M.P.T. Act. For said directions the learned Tribunal has given valid reasons. Thus, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is a possible view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, no interference in the impugned order is required.

34. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a fit case where interference in the impugned Order under the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.

35. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

36. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, the I. A. (L) No. 13448 of 2023 does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Anand Page No. 41