Allowed

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Nov 2016WP/9636/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his debarment from acting as an examiner, alleging denial of natural justice due to lack of a proper show-cause notice. The High Court held the impugned decision unsustainable because the notice issued contemplated an inquiry against a colleague and failed to detail allegations against the petitioner, violating procedural requirements.

What did the court decide?

The impugned decision debarring the petitioner to act as an examiner was set aside. The University was directed to initiate a fresh inquiry after issuing a proper show-cause notice.

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

WP 9636/13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9636/2013

¶6

Dr.Sinkukumar S/o Krishnakumar Singh.
 ...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others.
 ...Respondents.

¶9

 .....

¶10

Shri Sanjay V.Mundhe, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms.R.P.Gour, AGP for the Respondent No.1.
Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Respondent no.3 served.

¶11

 .....

¶12

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶13

K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 25.11.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]The petitioner assails the decision dated

¶17

17.2.2013 thereby debarring the petitioner to act as an
examiner.

¶18

2]Mr.Mundhe, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the impugned decision is against the
ordinance so also principles of natural justice. The

¶19

learned counsel submits that at no material point of
time, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice
nor any enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. On
25.6.2016, only a letter was given to the petitioner with
regard to the enquiry to be conducted against Smt.K.G.
Jadhav. There was no notice issued to the petitioner

¶20

even remotely suggesting that enquiry was scheduled to be
conducted against the petitioner. The learned counsel
relies on the common ordinance on conduct of
examinations, assessment of answer books, unfair means
and other related matters of examination applicable to
Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad.

¶21

The learned counsel submits that the procedure for
investigation is provided. The enquiry is required to be
preceded with a show cause notice and reasonable
opportunity including oral hearing is required to be
given. No such procedure has been followed. As such the
impugned order is illegal.

¶22

3]Mr.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the

¶23

respondent no.2 - University submits that the petitioner
was aware of the charges against him. A notice dated
25.6.2012 was issued to the petitioner with regard to the

¶24

enquiry to be conducted of the mal-practices of the
Physical Education Department of which Smt.K.G. Jadhav
was the Head. The petitioner deliberately and willfully
remained absent in the enquiry and the hearing knowing
fully well that the charges would be proved against him.
The petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his

¶25

own wrong. The procedure has been followed. The
committee was constituted. The hearing was given. The
documents were provided to the persons who attended the
enquiry. After a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was
found guilty. The decision of the Board of Examination
was placed before the Management Council. The Management
Council in its meeting approved the decision of the Board

¶26

of Examinations in respect of the petitioner. The

¶27

petitioner was always non-cooperative. He even

¶28

criticized the Chairman of the Committee by making
personal allegations against him.

¶29

4]We have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

5]The notice dated 25.6.2012 (Exhibit C) certainly

¶31

cannot be said to be a show cause notice issued to the
petitioner. The said notice contemplated enquiry against

¶32

WP 9636/13 - 4 -

¶33

Smt.K.G. Jadhav. In that enquiry, the petitioner was
directed to remain present on 10.7.2012. The said show
cause notice did not give details of the allegations,
which the petitioner is required to meet. As per the
procedure of investigation laid down int he common
ordinance, the implicated person is required to be
informed in writing of the acts of mal-practices alleged
and lapses committed by him at the examination and shall
ask him to show cause as to why charges leveled against

¶34

him should not be held as proved and the punishment

¶35

stipulated in the show cause notice to be imposed.
Thereafter, the concerned person is required to appear
before the enquiry committee with written reply,
explanation to the show cause notice and in the enquiry,
the documents are required to be shown and reasonable
opportunity including oral hearing is required to be

¶36

given to the concerned person. The ordinance further
states that the committee should follow the procedure in
the spirit of principles of natural justice.

¶37

6]It is trite that in case the principles of

¶38

natural justice are not adhered, then the enquiry would
stand vitiated. The well laid down procedure in the

¶39

common ordinance itself states that the enquiry has to be
preceded with the show cause notice. The show cause
notice would mean initiation of any proceedings against

¶40

a delinquent. The show cause notice would contain the
allegations, which are imputed against the delinquent and
the charges which he is reasonably required to meet. In
absence thereof, it cannot be said that the enquiry has
been conducted fairly.

¶41

7]Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the
matter, the impugned decision cannot be sustained and the
same deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

¶42

8]Needless to state that the respondent no.2 may,
if it so desires, initiate enquiry against the petitioner

¶43

after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and
following the procedure as laid down int he common
ordinance. If it so chooses to initiate such a
proceeding, it shall issue a show cause notice within a

¶44

period of six weeks and complete the enquiry
expeditiously and preferably within a period of six

¶45

months from the date of issuance of the show cause
notice. The petitioner is expected to cooperate in the
said proceedings. Till the said proceedings are decided,

¶46

WP 9636/13 - 6 -

¶47

it is open for the respondent no.2 not to allot
examination work to the petitioner. However, the
schedule, as detailed above, should be followed
scrupulously by the parties. Writ petition is disposed
of accordingly. No costs.

¶48

ndk/ c25111618.doc

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Osmanabad Zilla Samaj Seva Mandal Osmanabad through Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahsu Asaram Chavan and Others Vs the Union of India Thr Secretary New Delhi and Others

Subhash Bhausaheb Dube and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara Vs the Union of India and Ors.