Dismissed

Dr. Shri. Nitinkumar Jagannath Ranshur v. Mahatam Phule Agricultural University and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2016WP/4790/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order of a medical officer from Pune to Rahuri. The court found the transfer justified by in-house inquiry outcomes and refused interference, noting the petitioner's subsequent non-reporting.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; University directed to consider petitioner's absence and deal with him departmentally if he fails to report.

Dr. Shri. Nitinkumar Jagannath Ranshur Vs Mahatam… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

rsk 1/3 WP-4790-15.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4790 OF 2015

¶4

Dr. Nitinkumar Jagannath Ranshur ...Petitioner.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Mahatama Phule Agricultural University & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. P. G. Sarda for the petitioner. Ms. Neeta Karnik for respondent No.1. Mr. Akshay Shinde i/b Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for respondent No.3. Mr. U.R. Mankapure for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ . 2 9^th January, 2016 .

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. The petitioner challenges his transfer order dated 31/1/2015

¶11

from Pune to Rahuri. Mr. Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer is made with malafide intention and is unreasonable and arbitrary in nature. The petitioner has brought on record the concerned notice at page Nos.28 and 29 of the Paper-Book. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Vice Chancellor has favoured respondent No.2.

¶12

rsk 2/3 WP-4790-15.sxw

¶13

Affidavit in reply has been filed by the Registrar of respondent No.1-University. Ms. Karnik, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that initially the petitioner had asked for transfer and at his request vide order dated 31/1/2015, the Vice Chancellor transferred the petitioner from Pune to Rahuri. The said order is annexed to the affidavit. Learned counsel further submits that in-house inquiry was conducted in respect of allegations of sexual harassment. She submits that during the inquiry nothing was found adverse to the petitioner. Therefore, no action was taken against the petitioner. Respondent No.3, who was the complainant, had filed an appeal against the decision taken by the Inquiry Committee.

¶14

Mr. Mankapure, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that respondent no.2 is working in place of the petitioner at Rahuri since last one year.

¶15

It is surprising to note that since after transfer of the petitioner to Rahuri, the petitioner has preferred not to join the college at Rahuri since last one year. On merits, we find that the University has explained the circumstances in which the petitioner was transferred and taking

¶16

rsk 3/3 WP-4790-15.sxw

¶17

overall view of the matter, we find that no interference is warranted by this Court. The absence of the petitioner for a period of one year shall be taken into account by the University and in case the petitioner fails to report duty , the University may deal with him departmentally.

¶18

Petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶19

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Dr. Shri. Nitinkumar Jagannath Ranshur v. Mahatam Phule Agricultural University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Shri. Nitinkumar Jagannath Ranshur v. Mahatam Phule Agricultural University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mariam Shakir Bhagwani Vs Shakir Abdul Gaffar Bhagwani

Shri. Balasaheb Baburao Jambhulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sau. Rajiya Ajmoddin Tamboli Vs Shri. Rohan Kailas Dorage and Ors.

Dr. Madhav Rangrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Shankar Ramchandra Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Secondary and Higher Secondary School and Ors.

Dr. Madhav Rangrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary to Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.