Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No.2050 Of 2010. Case: Maharashtra University Of Health Sciences & Ors. Vs Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 13 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No.2050 Of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv., Prasenjit Keswani and Gaurav Agrawal, Advs and For Respondents: Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai and G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advs.
JudgesG.S Singhvi,Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
IssueMaharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 - Sections 2(35), 16(8), 53, 53(1), 53(2), 53(3) and 53(4); Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950; University Act; Indian Penal Code - Sections 34, 354, 468, 471, 506 and 509
CitationAIR 2010 SC 1325, 2010 (2) BomCR 783, (2010) 3 SCC 786, 2010 (3) UJ 1288 (SC)
Judgement DateFebruary 25, 2010
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Ganguly, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences through its Registrar and its Grievance Committee and Management Council as appellants impugn the judgment dated 8.6.07 rendered by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on several writ petitions filed by the Management Council and the employees.

  3. The basic facts of the case are as under:

    The appellant No.1, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences has been constituted under Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 (for short `the said Act'). The 2nd appellant is the Committee constituted under Section 53 of the said Act and the 3rd appellant is the Management Council of the appellant No.1 and also constituted under the said Act.

  4. The 1st respondent in this appeal is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the said trust runs several colleges including the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent is the Principal of the said college and the 4th respondent is a Lecturer therein. Both the 5th and 6th respondents were appointed Lecturers in the said college but their appointments were not approved but they continued to work as lecturers in the said college.

  5. On 7.8.05 a representation was made by the 5th respondent to the effect that after she had served the said college for the last three and a half year suddenly she was informed on 6.8.05 that the college authorities accepted her resignation. That was shocking to her since the 5th respondent could never resign as she had several liabilities and had no other income. The education of her two children had to be looked after while her husband was disabled in view of an accident and her father-in-law was a retired person. In her representation to the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-University she stated that at the time of her appointment, college authorities took her signature on a resignation letter without mentioning any date and that might have been used to remove her from the college. The University on receipt of the said representation sent a letter to the said college on 19th August, 2005 for its explanation and explanation was submitted by the said college on 31.08.05.

  6. Thereafter, the appellant-University formed a Committee to look into the grievance of the 5th respondent and the said Committee after visiting the college and conducting an enquiry on 29.08.05, 01.09.05 and 02.09.05 submitted its report to the appellant-University.

  7. Again on 09.09.05, the 5th respondent submitted another representation to the Grievance Committee of the appellant-University which was also forwarded to the said college for its response. That was submitted by the said college on 04.10.05 and 08.11.05. Thereafter, the appellant-University gave the 5th respondent a hearing in respect of her complaint which she raised in her representation. The said meeting was held before the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee gave a detailed report on the basis of its enquiry. Before the report was given, the 5th respondent and the person against whom complaint was lodged were examined along with some witnesses. Thereafter, the Grievance Committee took a decision to refer the matter to the State Commission for Women for further investigation and it was decided that the report of the said Commission was to be considered in the next meeting of the Committee.

  8. Thereafter, on 18th January, 2006 the 6th respondent lodged a further complaint with the police station Sadar against the 4th respondent as a result of which offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C was registered against the 4th respondent and the Summary Criminal Case No.4332/06 was registered in the Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur. On 19.01.06, 5th respondent also lodged report with the police station and on the basis of the said report an offence came to be registered on 04.02.06 vide Crime No.22/06 under Sections 468, 471, 354, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the aforesaid criminal case, the 3rd and 4th respondents were arrested by the police on 05.02.06 and were remanded to police custody for two days. They were granted bail by the Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur on 08.02.06. The Principal of the college was also granted anticipatory bail on 06.02.06 and which order was subsequently confirmed on 23.02.06.

  9. Then on 18.02.06, the services of the 6th respondent were terminated by the said college.

  10. In view of the complaint of the 6th respondent, the University called the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents for hearing on 08.03.06 before the Grievance Committee and on 04.03.06 the 6th respondent sent a complaint to the appellant- University seeking action against the respondents. In that complaint the 6th respondent gave details of ill-treatment and sexual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
13 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT