UNIVERSITY OF PUNE AND ANR. v. SHASHANK BALKRISHNA BANGALE
Limits of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Matters: Subordinate Employees Cannot Plead Superior Orders to Excuse Manifest Procedural Breaches or Corruption.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9304
Decision Date: 24-02-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Non-Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984; Maharashtra Public Works Department Manual; Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings and Scope of Judicial Review; Principles of Natural Justice; Constitution of India, Article 226 and 227
- Facts: The respondent, a Junior Engineer at the University of Pune, was subjected to a departmental inquiry based on three charges: issuing blank tender forms to ineligible contractors, improperly opening tender envelopes in violation of two-envelope system norms, and accepting illegal gratification (Rs. 5,000 in cash and Rs. 7,000 for travel expenses). The Enquiry Officer found all charges proved based on oral testimony and documentary evidence, including file notings and audio transcripts. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent challenged this before the University and College Tribunal, which set aside the punishment and ordered reinstatement with full back wages, primarily on the grounds that the respondent lacked final decision-making authority and that the evidence was insufficient.
- Procedural Posture: The University of Pune and its Vice Chancellor filed this writ petition before the Bombay High Court to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 14 July 2006 passed by the University and College Tribunal.
- Issue: Whether the University and College Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence from a departmental inquiry and whether a subordinate employee can escape liability for procedural breaches by claiming to act under superior instructions.
- Holding: Yes, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and reinstated the penalty of compulsory retirement.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to the decision-making process and not the decision itself. The Tribunal erred by acting as an appellate court and re-weighing evidence that was already supported by relevant material. In service law, "obedience to superior orders is not an absolute defence" when the acts are plainly contrary to statutory rules or prescribed procedures. The respondent, as a technical officer, was duty-bound to verify eligibility before processing tenders. Furthermore, the Court held that back wages are not automatic and require the employee to plead and prove they were not gainfully employed, which the respondent failed to do. The penalty of compulsory retirement was deemed not "shockingly disproportionate" given the gravity of charges involving corruption and procedural manipulation.
🔒 For Members Only