IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.________OF 2024

[Arising out of Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10472
of 2022]

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

ALONG WITH

I.A. NO. _______ OF 2024

(Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Petition)
&
I.A. NO. _______ OF 2024
(Application for Permission to Bring on Record Additional Documents)

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX PLEASE SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: KUSH CHATURVEDI

 INDEX

S. Particulars of Documents Page No. of part to Remark

which it s
No
. belongs
Part I Part-II
[Cont [Contentsof
entsof filealone.
Paper
Book]
[i] [ii] [iii] [iv] [v]
1. Court Fee
2. Office Report on Limitation A A
3. Listing Performa. A1-A2 A1-A2
4. Cover page of Paper Book A-3
5. Index of Record of Proceedings A-4
6. Limitation Report prepared by the
Registry
7. Defect List A-4

8. Note Sheet NS 1 to

9. Synopsis & List of Dates B–T

10. Copy of the Impugned Judgement

and Final Order dated 27.09.2023
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of 1 - 12
Judicature at Bombay in Writ
Petition No. 10472 of 2022

11. Special Leave Petition along with 13 - 21

affidavit in support thereof
12. APPENDIX
Section 83 of the Maharashtra 22 - 23
Public Universities Act, 2016

13. ANNEXURE P-1

Copy of the Letter dated 03.07.2018, 24
issued by the Principal of Respondent
No. 2 College

14. ANNEXURE P-2

Copy of the Appeal No. 02 of 2019 25 - 38
dated January 2019 filed before the
University & College Tribunal at
Mumbai

15. ANNEXURE P-3

Copy of the Judgement dated
10.12.2021 passed by the University & 39 – 45
College Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal
No. 02 of 2019

16. ANNEXURE P-4

Copy of the Writ Petition No. 10472
of 2022 dated 06.08.2022 filed before 46 - 66
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
at Bombay

17. I.A. NO. _______ OF 2024

Application for Condonation of 67 – 69
Delay in Filing the Petition

18. I.A. NO. _______ OF 2024

Application for Permission to Bring 70 - 72
on Record Additional Documents
19. ANNEXURE P-5
Copy of Contempt Petition No. 283 of 73 - 83
2024 dated April 2024 filed in Writ
Petition No. 10472 of 2022 before the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay

20. ANNEXURE P-6

Copy of Order dated 10.09.2024
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of 84 - 89
Judicature at Bombay in Contempt
Petition No. 283 of 2024

21. F/M 90

22. V/M 91

23. MEMO OF PARTIES 92

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (C) NO.________OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Appeal is/are within time.

2. The Appeal is barred by time and there is delay of 268 days in filing the

same against the Final order dated 27.09.2024 and Application for

condonation of 268 days delay in filing has been filed.

3. There is delay of 0 days in refiling the Appeal and Application for

condonation of 0 days delay in refiling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

PLACE: NEW DELHI

FILED ON: 19.09.2024
 PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION:

THIS CASE PERTAINS TO (Please tick/ check the correct box):

Central Act: (Title)

Section :

Central Rule : (Title) N.A.

Rule No(s) N.A.

State Act: (Title) N.A.

Section : N.A.

State Rule : (Title) N.A.

Rule No(s): N.A.

Impugned Interim Order :

Impugned Final Order /Decree 27.09.2023

High Court : (Name) HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

JJUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Names of Judges: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP

V. MARNE
Tribunal /Authority : (Name)

Names of Judges:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Nature of the matter CIVIL Criminal

2. a) Petitioner: SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO

b) Email I.D. kushchaturvedi@[Link]

c) Mobile phone number: 9711114870

3. a) RESPONDENT NO. 1 : THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

b) RESPONDENT NO. 2 : THAKUR COLLEGE OF SCIENCE

AND COMMERCE

c) Email I.D. N/A

d) Mobile phone number: N.A.
4. a)Main category classification 18 ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS
b) Sub classification:
5. Not to be listed before: N.A.
6(a) Similar disposed of matter with No Similar Matter Disposed
citation, if any, & case details
6(b) Similar pending matter with case No Similar Matter Pending
details
7. CRIMINAL MATTERS: NO

a)Whether accused /convict has surrendered: YES NO

b) FIR No. N.A.

c) Police Station: N.A.

d) Sentenced awarded N.A.

e) Period of Sentence Undergone N.A.

including Period of detention/
custody undergone:
8. LAND ACQUISITION MATTERS: NO

a) Date of Section 4 notification : N.A.

b) Date of Section 6 notification : N.A.

c) Date of Section 17 notification: N.A.

9. TAX MATTERS : State the Tax effect:

10. SPECIAL CATEGORY: (first petitioner/ appellant only):

Senior citizen> 65 yea rs SC/ ST Woman /child

Disabled Legal Aid case in custody

11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters) : N.A.

FILED BY: -

KUSH CHATURVEDI
AOR for Petitioner
Registration No. 1979
Office: - A-53, 17-A,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301
(+91) 9711114870
kushchaturvedi@[Link]

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATE: 19.09.2024
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

[Link]. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PAGES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.
 B
SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner have been constrained to invoke the extra ordinary

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

to challenge the Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022.

W.P. No. 10472 of 2022 had been filed by the Petitioner challenging the

Order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Mumbai University & College

Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Tribunal”). The Ld. Tribunal had

whilst allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging his termination

dated 03.07.2018, had erroneously granted an opportunity to the Respondent No.

3 College to conduct a fresh enquiry. The Hon’ble High Court, by virtue of the

impugned Judgement, erroneously upheld the aforesaid decision of the Ld.

Tribunal.

It is submitted that the action of the Ld. Tribunal had come to a categoric

finding that the Petitioner had been terminated without any statutory enquiry

having been held against him. After having held so, the Ld. Tribunal exceeded its

jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016

(“the 2016 Act”) in granting liberty to the Respondent No. 2 College to hold a

fresh enquiry. Section 83 of the 2016 Act is reproduced hereinbelow: -

“83. (1) On receipt of an appeal, where the Tribunal after giving reasonable
C
opportunity of being heard to both parties, is satisfied that the appeal does

not pertain to any of the matters specified in sub-section (1) of section 81 or

is not maintainable, or there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the

order of the university or management or decision of the Grievances

Committee, it may dismiss the appeal.

(2) Where the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity to both the

parties of being heard, decides in any appeal that the order of dismissal,

removal, otherwise termination of service, compulsory retirement or

reduction in rank, or the decision of the Grievances Committee, was in

contravention of any law, contract or conditions of service for the time being

in force or was otherwise illegal or improper, the Tribunal may set aside the

order of the university or the management, or decision of the Grievances

Committee, as the case may be, partially or wholly, and direct the university

or the management,-

(a) to reinstate the employee on the same post or on a lower post as it

may specify;

(b) to restore the employee to the rank which he held before reduction

or to any lower rank as it may specify;

(c) to give arrears of emoluments, dues and other monetary benefits to

the employee for such period as it may specify;

 (d) to award such lesser punishment at it may specify in lieu of
D
dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service, compulsory

retirement or reduction in rank, as the case may be;

(e) where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in any other

appropriate case, to give such sum to the employee, not exceeding his

emoluments for six months, by way of compensation, regard being had

to loss of employment and possibility of getting or not getting suitable

employment thereafter, as it may specify; or

(f) to give such other relief to the employee and to observe such other

conditions as it may specify, having regard to the circumstances of the

case.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Tribunal to recommend to the State Government

that any dues directed by it to be paid to the employee may be deducted from

the grant payable to the university or, as the case may be, the management

and be paid to the employee directly.

(4) Any direction issued by the Tribunal under sub-section (2) shall be

communicated to both parties in writing and shall be complied with by the

university or management within the period specified in the direction, which

shall not be less than two months from the date of its receipt by the university

or management.”
 E
The Hon’ble High Court also noticed that during the pendency of the Writ

Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, the Respondent No. 2 College had in fact

conducted a fresh enquiry and had terminated the Petitioner on 10.01.2023.

Pertinently, the aforesaid fresh enquiry was also conducted in the absence of the

Petitioner inasmuch as Notices were sent to his native place in Odisha, which he

was unaware of.

Be that as it may, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the very liberty granted by

the Ld. Tribunal to the Respondent No. 2 College to conduct a fresh enquiry.

Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

 LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
F
DATE PARTICULARS

11.06.2007 The Petitioner herein has done M.A. in Economics, [Link].,

[Link]., LLB and has also cleared NET.

That after due process of issuing advertisement, holding interview

before the Selection Committee, the Petitioner was duly appointed

as a Lecturer in Economics by Respondent No. 2 College, which

is run by Respondent No. 1 Trust.

20.12.2007 Thereafter, the Petitioner’s appointment was approved by the

University of Mumbai.

10.06.2009 Subsequently, the Petitioner’s appointment was also confirmed by

the Respondent No. 2 College.

31.01.2018 As things stood thus, the Petitioner after being in service for 11

years, received a letter from the Principal of Respondent No. 2

College, intimating about three months’ notice for termination

from service, inter alia, as under: -

 “Also College authorities had received written complaints
G
regarding your behaviour is not cordial with students

community. Accordingly you had been informed orally as

well as issued memo to improve your behaviour with

students community.

Till date no improvement is observed by the College

authorities in your behaviour as well as in teaching

method.

Under the circumstances stated above please treat this

letter as a three months' notice and your services will be

terminated from 30/04/2018 after office hours.”

23.04.2018 However, instead of being terminated as intimated earlier, the

Petitioner was put under suspension vide Suspension Order issued

by the Respondent No. 2 College on the charge inter alia, as

under: -

“I Dr. (Mrs) C.T. Chakraborty, Principal do hereby

suspend you from the service of the College with effect

from 23/04/2018 (AN) on the charge/s mentioned below: -

(1) No Class Control

(2) Lectures not effect”

25.05.2018 Thereafter, the Petitioner had submitted a request letter to the
H
Respondent No. 2 College, on the basis of which, the Suspension

Order was revoked and the Petitioner was allowed to sign the

muster roll from 26.05.2018.

NOTE: - Although, the Petitioner resumed duty on 26.05.2018,

his name was not included in the regular attendance muster and

no work as such was assigned.

25.06.2018 Although having Ph.D. was not the minimum

criteria/qualification for Assistant Professor but the Petitioner was

being compelled by the Principal of Respondent No. 2 College, to

complete Ph.D. within one year.

In the meantime, the Petitioner applied for permission to

undertake Ph.D. and was forced by the Principal of Respondent

No. 2 College to include the following sentence at the end of the

letter:

“Please give me one year extension as definitely I will

submit Ph.D. thesis and look for other avenues.”

27.06.2018 The Petitioner was constrained to write a letter to the Vice
I
Chancellor, University of Mumbai with respect to the ongoing

harassment by the Respondent No. 2 College.

02.07.2018 The Petitioner further preferred a letter to the Principal of

Respondent No. 2 College, highlighting the difficulties and

harassment faced, by being not allowed to perform the

administrative task and duties.

03.07.2018 However, instead of addressing the issues raised by the Petitioner

hereinabove, the Respondent No. 2 College served the Petitioner

with a fresh notice, indicating termination of Petitioner’s service

from the institute, inter alia, as under: -

“It has been observed that since re-opening of the College

on 18th June 2018 for the academic year 2018-19 you are

not reporting to Duty and completing the workload

assigned.

By considering your office record in the past (memo’s,

Enquiry Committee’s, Physical assault to the Learners etc

and written apologies and request to continue in the

 service) it seems you are extreme case of sheer negligence
J
and adamant behaviour.

Consider this as a notice period (till end of academic year

2018-19) for termination of service in the Institute.

You are hereby informed to report on time henceforth.”

Copy of the Letter dated 03.07.2018, issued by the Principal of

Respondent No. 2 College is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE P-1 at (Pg. No. 24)

29.08.2018 The Respondent No. 2 issued another letter to the Petitioner,

referring to alleged complaints received against him and

conveying that the decision of termination would stand valid, inter

alia, as under: -

“This is being regularly communicated by the Learners to

the concerned authorities and henceforth you are directed

to change your behaviour and show commitment towards

your profession as a Teacher. As per our previous decision

for termination of your services in the institution (till end

of academic year 2018-19) taking the above points into

consideration the decision stands valid.”

30.08.2018 Thereafter, the Petitioner was constrained to submit his grievances
K
before the Chairman, University of Mumbai, Grievances

Committee and later withdrew it as the service of the Petitioner

wasn’t terminated.

25.12.2018 Further, the Petitioner also preferred a letter to the Respondent No.

1 i.e., Trust of the Respondent No. 2 College, highlighting the

issues and grievances against the Respondent No. 2 College.

05.01.2019 That, acting in a wholly arbitrary manner, the Respondent No. 2

further issued a letter to the Petitioner, restraining him from

entering the college premises, inter alia, as under: -

“Since there is no workload assigned, you are required not

to come to college any more, However, it is noticed that

you continue to come to college and create nuisance.

You are hereby warned not to enter in the college premise

with immediate effect, failing which we will take

appropriate action against you.”

 NOTE: - In the above-mentioned letter addressed by the Principal
L
of Respondent No. 2 College, it was reiterated that the Petitioner

was terminated vide aforesaid letter dated 03.07.2018.

14.01.2019 Thereafter, the Principal of Respondent No. 2 College addressed

another letter, in which he referred to the supervision duty

performed by the Petitioner earlier in November/December 2018.

It was arbitrarily held, that the Petitioner was unable to control the

class and maintain the decorum of the examination during

supervision duty.

Further, the Principal of Respondent No. 2 College addressed

another letter to the Petitioner, referring to the earlier letter dated

25.12.2018 issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1,

Trust. In the said letter, the Principal of Respondent No. 2 College

confirmed again the Petitioner’s termination letter issued earlier

on 03.07.2018.

NOTE: - At no point of time, the Respondent College or

Respondent Trust held any enquiry against the Petitioner or placed

any enquiry report in support of the arbitrary termination.

January Being aggrieved by the Arbitrary termination, the Petitioner was
M
2019 constrained to prefer an Appeal before the Ld. University and

College Tribunal at Mumbai vide Appeal No. 02 of 2019, inter

alia, seeking following reliefs: -

“18. The Appellant therefore prays that this Hon'ble

Tribunal may be pleased to-

a) Quash and set aside the three letters (i) dated 3-7-2018

(ii) undated but received on 5-1-2019 being and letter

dated 14- 1-2019 of termination of service to take effect at

the end of the academic year 2018-19 on or after 30th

April 2019 as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, mala

fide, brought about by colourable exercise of managerial

powers and also that it is against the principles of natural

justice.

b) Direct Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to reinstate the

Appellant in (be post of Assistant Professor held by him

with continuity in service and without any break in service

and permit the Appellant to perform his duties in the post

at the college;
 c) Direct Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to pay back wages that
N
may become due and payable to him after 30-4-2019…;”

Copy of the Appeal No. 02 of 2019 dated January 2019 filed

before the University & College Tribunal at Mumbai is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-2 at (Pg. Nos. 25 to 38)

2019 The Respondent No. 1 & 2 herein filed their Written Statement in

Appeal No. 02 of 2019, making same allegations as highlighted

above.

NOTE: - No justification/reasons whatsoever was given with

respect to non- conduct of an enquiry.

24.07.2019 The Petitioner herein filed the Rejoinder to the Written Statement

of Respondent No. 1 & 2 in Appeal No. 02 of 2019.

10.12.2021 The Ld. Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the Appeal by

directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service.

However, the Ld. Tribunal erroneously granted liberty to the

Respondents to hold fresh enquiry against the Petitioner, inter

alia, as under: -
 “ORDER
O
The Appeal is partly allowed.

The impugned order of termination of the services of the

Appellant is set aside and he is reinstated with continuity

in service on the same post, for want of statutory enquiry.

The Respondents are granted liberty to hold fresh enquiry.

The Respondents shall proceed with enquiry as per

procedure prescribed under Statute 444 read with 439 and

shall complete the enquiry within 8 months. The issues of

back wages shall depend on the outcome of the enquiry.

If enquiry is not completed within a period of 8 months,

the Respondents shall be liable to pay back wages for

which the Appellant may move this Court to determine the

quantum. The Respondents shall pay cost quantified at Rs.

5000/- to the Appellant.”

Copy of the Judgement dated 10.12.2021 passed by the University

& College Tribunal at Mumbai in Appeal No. 02 of 2019 is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-3 at (Pg. Nos.

39 to 45)
16.04.2022 As things stood thus, the Respondent College/University did not
P
issue any formal order of reinstatement of the Petitioner in

pursuance of the above-mentioned order passed by the Ld.

Tribunal. Instead, the Petitioner was served with a letter issued by

the Respondent College, stating that the Petitioner had failed to

report for duties.

NOTE: The Petitioner did not receive the aforementioned letter

from the Respondent College as it was addressed to his at his

native in Odisha, which the Petitioner came to know about at the

later stage.

23.06.2022 Subsequently, the Respondent College addressed another

communication to the Petitioner, alleging him of remaining absent

and calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action

should not be initiated against him.

NOTE: Even the aforesaid letter was addressed to the Petitioner’s

native place and hence, was received by him only at a later point

of time.
06.08.2022 That the Peitioner, being aggrieved by the liberty granted by the
Q
Ld. Tribunal to the Respondents to hold fresh enquiry by virtue of

order dated 10.12.2021, was constrained to prefer a Writ Petition

before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay vide W.P.

No. 10472 of 2022 inter alia, seeking following reliefs: -

“28. THE PETITIONER THEREFORE PRAYS THAT-

a. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for records and

proceedings from the office of the Respondent No. 1 and after

examining the legality and propriety of the same, this Hon'ble

Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order

and Judgment dated 11 December, 2021 passed by the Ld.

Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal

i.e. Respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 02 of 2019;

b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ

Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the

Respondent No. 2 to reinstate the Petitioner on his original

post with continuity and full back wages;

c. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ

Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the

Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to stay the inquiry proceedings

initiated by them against the Petitioner by Inquiry Officer, Mr.

V.N. Malya…;”
 Copy of the Writ Petition No. 10472 of 2022 dated 06.08.2022
R
filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4 at (Pg. Nos.

46 to 66)

10.01.2023 In the meantime, the Respondent College allegedly conducted

disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner by appointing an

Enquiry Officer, who submitted the alleged report holding

Petitioner guilty of Charge Nos. 1 and 2.

In pursuance of the alleged enquiry report, the service of the

Petitioner was again terminated without even being heard.

NOTE 1: - At no point of time the Respondent College informed

the Petitioner about the said enquiry or was made a part of it. The

Petitioner did not even receive the alleged enquiry report on the

basis of which he was terminated again.

NOTE 2: - The alleged enquiry report has admittedly said to be

served upon the Petitioner at his native place in Odisha which the

Petitioner came to know about only at the later stage when the

impugned order was passed.

 NOTE 3: - The Respondent College failed to comply with the
S
order passed by the Ld. Tribunal and conducted an enquiry against

the Petitioner without reinstating him.

27.09.2023 By virtue of the impugned judgement and final order, the Hon’ble

High Court erroneously upheld the Ld. Tribunal’s Order which

had, inter alia, granted liberty to the Respondent College to

conduct a fresh enquiry. The operative part of the Impugned

Judgement is extracted herein for the convenience, inter alia, as

under: -

i. “The Tribunal’s Order setting aside termination and

granting liberty for conduct of enquiry is upheld.

ii. Tribunal's direction for payment of back wages only in the

event of failure to conclude inquiry within 8 months is set

aside.

iii. Respondent-Management shall treat Petitioner as under

deemed suspension from 03 July 2018 till finalization of

enquiry and passing of final order. He shall be paid

subsistence allowance as per Rules/Regulations during the

suspension period from 03 July 2018 till the date of

 passing of final order in the inquiry. The payment of
T
subsistence allowance shall be made by the Respondent

management within a period of four weeks from today.

iv. Petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the fresh enquiry

as well as the fresh order of punishment by filing

appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal. All

contentions in that regard are left open.”

NOTE: Later, in April 2024, the Petitioner filed a Contempt

Petition against the Respondent College for failing to comply with

the direction of the Hon’ble High Court to treat Petitioner as under

deemed suspension from 03.07.2019 till finalization of fresh

enquiry and passing of final order and to pay subsistence

allowance as per Rules/Regulations during the suspension period

within a period of four weeks. The Hon’ble High Court

erroneously dismissed the Contempt Petition on 10.09.2024 filed

by the Petitioner, inter alia, holding that there was no direction to

the Respondents to conduct fresh enquiry and also that there was

material on record to indicate that the Petitioner could be gainfully

employed and has earned substantial amount

19.09.2024 Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

[S.C.R. ORDER XXI, RULE 3(1)(a)]

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022)

IN THE MATTER OF: - POSITION OF PARTIES

BEFORE THE BEFORE THIS

HON’BLE HIGH HON’BLE
COURT COURT

1. SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO Petitioner Petitioner

Aged About 49 Years
R/o Flat No. 002,
Building No. 17,
Panchratna CHS,
Agarwal Green Village,
Kashimira, Dist. Thane,
Maharashtra – 401107

Versus
 14
1. THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST Respondent Respondent

Through its Secretary, No. 2 No. 1

Having their office at: -

Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg,

Thakur Village, Kamidvali East,

Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400101

2. THAKUR COLLEGE OF SCIENCE Respondent Respondent

AND COMMERCE No. 3 No. 2

Through its Principal,

Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg,

Thakur Village, Kamidvali East,

Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400101

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PRAYER OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE-MENTIONED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

 1. The Petitioner have been constrained to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
15
this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to challenge the

Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022. By virtue of the

impugned judgement and final order, the Hon’ble High Court whilst partly

allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, erroneously upheld the decision

of the Ld. Tribunal to grant an opportunity to the Respondent No. 2 College to

conduct a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner.

1A. The Ld. Mumbai University and College Tribunal, through its Presiding Officer

was arrayed as Respondent No. 1 by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022. As per the Supreme Court

Rules, the Tribunals cannot be made a party, therefore the same is being not

arrayed as a party in the present petition and has been deleted from the cause title.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW: -

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Court –

A. Whether the Order passed by the Ld. Tribunal, directing a fresh enquiry in the

present case, is in direct contravention of Section 83 (2) (a) of The Maharashtra

Public Universities Act, 2016;

B. Whether having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had been terminated

without conducting any statutory enquiry whatsoever, was the Ld. Tribunal

empowered to direct the Respondent No. 3 College to conduct a fresh enquiry

against the Petitioner.

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):
16
i. That the Petitioners states that no other or similar Petition seeking Special Leave

to Appeal has been filed by them against the Impugned Judgement and Final

Order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

That the Annexures P-1 to P-6 produced along with the present Special Leave

Petition are true copies of their respective originals and they form part of the

pleadings and the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below (Except

Annexures P-5 & P-6) against whose Order leave to appeal is sought for in the

present Special Leave Petition.

5. GROUNDS

That the leave to Appeal is sought for on the following amongst other Grounds:

A. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court has erred in allowing the Ld. Tribunal’s

direction to the Respondent No. 2 to conduct a fresh enquiry;

B. BECAUSE the action of Respondent No. 2 in terminating the service of the

Petitioner without holding an enquiry is violation of Petitioner’s Fundamental

Right;
 C. BECAUSE the Order passed by the Ld. Tribunal, directing a fresh enquiry in
17
the present case, is in direct contravention of Section 83 (2) (a) of The

Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016;

D. BECAUSE the Respondent No. 2 College had in fact conducted a fresh enquiry

and had terminated the Petitioner on 10.01.2023. Pertinently, the aforesaid

fresh enquiry was also conducted in the absence of the Petitioner inasmuch as

Notices were sent to his native place in Odisha, which he was unaware of;

E. BECAUSE the Respondent College failed to pay subsistence allowance as per

Rules/Regulations during the suspension period within a period of four weeks

as per the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court;

F. BECAUSE the Respondent College failed to issue an order of reinstatement to

the Petitioner as per the Order passed by the Ld. Tribunal;

G. BECAUSE the Petitioner cannot be deprived of his subsistence allowances

during the period of suspension;

H. BECAUSE after having come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had been

terminated without conducting any statutory enquiry whatsoever, the Ld.

Tribunal ought not to have direct the Respondent No. 2 College to conduct a

fresh enquiry against the Petitioner;

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

i. No interim relief sought

7. MAIN PRAYER:
18
In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -

a) Grant Special Leave to Appeal against Impugned Judgement and Final Order

dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay

in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022.

b) Pass such other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: -

(a) N/A

AND FOR THIS ACT OR KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

(KUSH CHATURVEDI)
Advocate for the Petitioner
PLACE: - NEW DELHI
DATE: - 19.09.2024
 19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (C) NO. _______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER
VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

C E R T I F I C A T E

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before

the High Court whose orders are challenged and the other documents relied upon

in those. No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or

relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the copies of

the documents/annexure attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to

answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged in

the Special Leave Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate

is given on the basis of instructions given by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed

in support of the S.L.P.

FILED BY: -

(KUSH CHATURVEDI)
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
NEW DELHI
FILED ON: 19.09.2024
20
21
 APPENDIX
22

THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ACT 2016

“83. (1) On receipt of an appeal, where the Tribunal after giving reasonable

opportunity of being heard to both parties, is satisfied that the appeal does

not pertain to any of the matters specified in sub-section (1) of section 81 or

is not maintainable, or there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the

order of the university or management or decision of the Grievances

Committee, it may dismiss the appeal.

(2) Where the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity to both the

parties of being heard, decides in any appeal that the order of dismissal,

removal, otherwise termination of service, compulsory retirement or

reduction in rank, or the decision of the Grievances Committee, was in

contravention of any law, contract or conditions of service for the time being

in force or was otherwise illegal or improper, the Tribunal may set aside the

order of the university or the management, or decision of the Grievances

Committee, as the case may be, partially or wholly, and direct the university

or the management,-

(a) to reinstate the employee on the same post or on a lower post as it

may specify;

(b) to restore the employee to the rank which he held before reduction

or to any lower rank as it may specify;

 (c) to give arrears of emoluments, dues and other monetary benefits to
23
the employee for such period as it may specify;

(d) to award such lesser punishment at it may specify in lieu of

dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service, compulsory

retirement or reduction in rank, as the case may be;

(e) where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in any other

appropriate case, to give such sum to the employee, not exceeding his

emoluments for six months, by way of compensation, regard being had

to loss of employment and possibility of getting or not getting suitable

employment thereafter, as it may specify; or

(f) to give such other relief to the employee and to observe such other

conditions as it may specify, having regard to the circumstances of the

case.

(3) It shall be lawful for the Tribunal to recommend to the State Government

that any dues directed by it to be paid to the employee may be deducted from

the grant payable to the university or, as the case may be, the management

and be paid to the employee directly.

(4) Any direction issued by the Tribunal under sub-section (2) shall be

communicated to both parties in writing and shall be complied with by the

university or management within the period specified in the direction, which

shall not be less than two months from the date of its receipt by the university

or management.”
 ANNEXURE P-1 24
Thakur Educational Trust’s (Regd.)
THAKUR COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & COMMERCE
UGC Recognised
(NAAC Re-Accredited with Grade ‘A’ [3rd Cycle] & ISO 9001:2015 Certified)
Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg, Thakur Village, Kandivali (East), Mumbai – 400 101, INDIA.
Tel: 2846 3565 / 2887 0527 | Fax: 2886 8922
Website: [Link] | Email: tcsc@[Link]

Date: - 03.07.2018

To,
Mr. S.K. Sahoo,
Degree - Economics

Subject: Lapse in Punctuality of Duty Timings

Dear S.K. Sahoo,

It has been observed that since re-opening of the College on 18th June 2018 for
the academic year 2018 - 19 you are not reporting to Duty and completing the
workload assigned.

Considering your office record in the past (memo's, Inquiry Committee's,

Physical assault to the Learners etc and written apologies and request to continue
in the service) it seems you are extreme case of sheer negligence and adamant
behaviour.

Consider this as a notice period (till end of academic year 2018-19) for
termination of services in the Institute.

You are hereby informed to report on time henceforth.

Sd/-

Illegible

Dr. (Mrs) C.T. Chakraborty

Principal

TRUE TYPED COPY

 ANNEXURE P-2 25
ANNEXURE : P - 14
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
 ANNEXURE P-3
ANNEXURE : P - 17 39
40
41
42
43
44
45
 ANNEXURE P-4
46
ANNEXURE : P - 18
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
67
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. ______ OF 2024
IN
SLP (C) NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE

PETITION

TO,

HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The Applicant/Petitioner have been constrained to invoke the extra ordinary
68
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India

to challenge the Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022.

By virtue of the impugned judgement and final order, the Hon’ble High Court

whilst partly allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, erroneously upheld

the decision of the Ld. Tribunal to grant an opportunity to the Respondent No. 3

College to conduct a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner.

2. That the detailed facts and circumstances pertaining to the instant case have been

set out in the captioned SLP and as such are not being repeated herein for the sake

of brevity. The Applicant/Petitioner craves liberty to refer to and rely upon the

same as and when this Application is taken up for hearing.

3. That there is a delay of 268 days in filing the captioned SLP.

4. That, the Applicant/Petitioner had to apply for Legal Aid Services for filing the

captioned Petition. While the request was being considered by the Supreme Court

Legal Aid Services Committee, the Applicant/Petitioner had filed a Contempt

Petition against the Respondents in Writ Petition No. 10472 of 2022 before the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Impugned Order passed in the

said Writ Petition is subject matter of the present SLP. The Hon’ble High Court

has finally decided the Contempt Petition and the same was dismissed by virtue

of Order dated 10.09.2024, due to which there is an inadvertent delay in filing the

captioned SLP.
5. That the Applicant/Petitioner has a good prima facie case on merits and the
69
balance of convenience is in his favour. Irreparable harm and injury may be

caused to the Applicant/Petitioner in the event the present Application is not

allowed.

6. That the present Application is being moved in the above-mentioned bonafide

facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice. No prejudice will be caused

to the Respondent if the present Application is allowed.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a) Allow the present Application and condone the delay of 268 days in filing the

SLP;

b) Pass such other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OR KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

FILED BY: -

PLACE: NEW DELHI (KUSH CHATURVEDI)

FILED ON: 19.09.2024 ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT/
PETITIONER
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
70
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. ______ OF 2024
IN
SLP (C) NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BRING OF RECORD ADDITIONAL

DOCUMENTS

TO,

HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF

THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

1. The Applicant/Petitioner have been constrained to invoke the extra ordinary 71
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to

challenge the Impugned Judgement and Final Order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 10472 of 2022. By virtue

of the impugned judgement and final order, the Hon’ble High Court whilst partly

allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner, erroneously upheld the decision of

the Ld. Tribunal to grant an opportunity to the Respondent No. 3 College to conduct

a fresh enquiry against the Petitioner.

2. That the detailed facts and circumstances pertaining to the instant case have been set

out in the captioned SLP and as such are not being repeated herein for the sake of

brevity. The Applicant/Petitioner craves liberty to refer to and rely upon the same as

and when this Application is taken up for hearing.

3. That, by way of the present Application, the Applicant/Petitioner seeks to bring on

record Additional Documents, which were not a part of record in the Courts below.

That the following documents may be relevant for the purposes of the adjudication

of the present Petition: -

i. Copy of Contempt Petition No. 283 of 2024 dated April 2024 filed in Writ

Petition No. 10472 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Bombay is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-5 at (Pg. Nos.

73 to 83)

ii. Copy of Order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Bombay in Contempt Petition No. 283 of 2024 is annexed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-6 at (Pg. Nos. 84 to 89)

4. That the Applicant/Petitioner has a good prima facie case on merits and the balance 72
of convenience is in his favour. Irreparable harm and injury may be caused to the

Applicant/Petitioner in the event the present Application is not allowed.

5. That the present Application is being moved in the above-mentioned bonafide facts

and circumstances and in the interest of justice. No prejudice will be caused to the

Respondent if the present Application is allowed.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

a) Allow the present Application and permit the Applicant/Petitioner to bring on

record Additional Documents marked as ANNEXURE P-5 & P-6 in the captioned

SLP;

b) Pass such other order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and

circumstances of the present case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OR KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL AS IN

DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

FILED BY: -

PLACE: NEW DELHI (KUSH CHATURVEDI)

FILED ON: 19.09.2024 ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT/
PETITIONER
 4
ANNEXURE P-5 73

V IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION NO 283 OF 2024

IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10472 of 2022 .

DISTRICT MUMBAI

· Subrat Kumar Sahoo,

Age 50 years, Occ.: Service (deemed suspension)

Indian Inhabitant,

Rio. Flat No.002, Building No.17,

Panchrtna CHS, Agarwal Green Village,

Kashimira, Dist. Thane-401 107. . .. Petitioner

Versus

1. The Ld. Presiding Officer,

Mumbai University and College Tribunal

Mumbai-400032.
2. Thakur Educational Trust

Through its Secretary,

Mr. Thakur Jitendra Singh
 5
74
Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg,
Thakur Village, Kandivli East,
Mumbai-400 101.
3. Thakur College of Science and Commerce,
(through it's Principal)
Dr. (Mrs) C. T. Chakraborty
Shyamnarayan Thakur Marg,
Thakur Village, Kandivali East,
Mumbai-400 101
;
. .... Respondents

SUB: - Contempt Petition for the Order dated 27th

September 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1. The Petitioner states that he was employed as Assistant Professor with

respondent no. 2 & 3 since 11 th June 2007. The petitioner states that he

was wrongly terminated vide a termination letter dt. 3 rd · July 2018 by

respondent no. 2 & 3. Presently petitioner is ·under deemed suspension

since 3rd July 2018.

2. Petitioner states that he challenged the illegal termination before the

University Tribunal Mumbai vide appeal No. 02 of 2019. The Hon'ble

Tribunal was pleased to set aside the termination as well as reinstated

the petitioner furthermore directed respondent no 2 & 3 to conduct a de-

nova inquiry in the said matter within 8(eight) months from its Judgement

& order cit.13 th January 2019. The Ld. _Tribunal also ordered that if the

said de-nova inquiry is not completed within 8(eight) months of its said

judgement & order then petitioner will be liable to be paid back wages in

the said matter.

fl
 6
75
3. Petitioner further states that the aforesaid order of the Ld. Tribunal was

not complied by respondent No. 2 & 3 in its letter & spirit. Thereafter

petitioner challenged the said order of the Ld. Tribunal before this

Hon'ble Court vide Writ Petition bearing No. 10472 of 2022 along with

Interim Application bearing No.4447 of 2023.

4. Petitioner states that this Hon'ble Court was pleased to part[y allow the

said Writ petition and directed respondents to consider the petitioner

under deemed suspension from 3rd July 2018 'till finalisation of the order

of inquiry in the said matter furthermore also directed to pay the

subsistence allowance as per the applicable rules & regulation for the

aforesaid period as specifically stated in the order dt. 27th September

2023 within 4(four) weeks of the said order. The operative part is

reproduced as hereunder: -

1. The Tribunal's Order setting aside termination and granting

liberty for conduct of enquiry is upheld.

2. Tribunal's direction for payment of back wages only in the event

of failure to conclude inquiry within 8 months is set aside.

3. Respondent-Management shall treat Petitioner as under

deemed suspension from 03 July 2018 till finalization of enquiry

and passing of final order. He shall be paid subsistence

allowance as per Rules/Regulations during the suspension

period from 03 July 2018 till the date of passing of final order in

the inquiry. The payment of subsistence allowance shall be

made by the Respondent- management withfn a period of four

weeks from today.

L
 7
76
(Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit "A" is the copy of the order

& Judgement dt. 27th September 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court).

5. The petitioner states that pursuant to the aforesaid order dt. 27th

September 2023 respondent college was bound to comply with the

directions of this Hon'ble Court and pay the subsistence allowance as

per the rules & regulations within 4(four) weeks which was not wilfully

abided by the said respondent no 2 & 3.

6. The petitioner states that the respondent college had not conducted the

lawful inquiry as directed by this Hon'ble Court in the presence of the

petitioner furthermore has not paid the subsistence allowance to him as

per the said order.

7. · The petitioner states that respondent no 2 & 3 vide letter dt. 14th October

2023 demanded a certificate under statute 444 of Statute Book of

University of Mumbai from the petitioner that he had not accepted any

gainful employment or trade or business for the period for which the

petitioner is seeking subsistence allowance. The petitioner thereafter

replied to the said letter dt. 14th October 2023 sent by the respondent

college.

(Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit "B" "Colly" are the copies of

letter dt. 14th October 2023 sent by respondent college [Link] replies

of the petitioner).

8. The petitioner states that he had replied to the various communications

received from respondent no 2 & 3 and informed the said respondent

college that he had not accepted any gainful employment as per the

provisions of law and had never conducted any business of trade or

 8
77
commerce as prescribed in the statute 444 of University of Mumbai as

well as applicable provisions of law for the payment of subsistence

allowance for the said period for which he is seeking subsistence

allowance.

{Attached herewith and marked as Exhibit "C" "Colly" are the copies of

various communication between petitioner & respondents in the said ·

matter).

9. The petitioner states that the respondent college thereafter calculated

an incorrect subsistence allowance against the applicable provisions of

law & were compelling the petitioner to accept the said meagre amount

of Rs. 4, 14,780/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Seven

Eighty Only) for the period from 3rd July 2018 to 10th January 2023.

10. The petitioner states that he informed the respondent college that he will

not accept the aforesaid incorrect & meagre amount of subsistence

allowance furthermore also forwarded a statement of computation of

subsistence allowance as per the calculation of the petitioner from 3 rd

July 2018 till 29th February 2024.

11. The petitioner states that the respondent college conducted an illegal

inquiry without giving any prior notice to the petitioner, without his

presence furthermore illegally dismissed him from the said college

without any opportunity to file his say in the said inquiry. The petitioner

states that the said illegal inquiry to dismiss the petitioner without any

notice was conducted to deliberately non-comply with the order of this

Hon'ble Court to continue to pay the subsistence allowance to the

petitioner till final order in the inquiry by the respondent college.(__

 9
78
12. The petitioner thereafter also issued a legal notice cit.20th February 2024

to the respondent no 2 & 3 seeking compliance of order cit.27 th

September 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court. The respondent no 2 &

3 also issued their reply cit.27 th February 2024 to the petitioner along

with an enclosed cheque of Rs. 4,14,780/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Fourteen Thousand and Seven Eighty Only). The petitioner thereafter

vide his letter dt. 2nd March 2024 returned the said cheque & informed

his non-willingness to accept the said meagre & incorrect subsistence

allowance contrary to the provisions of law.

13. Petitioner states that the respondent college vide their reply dt. 27th

February 2024 has made some false & incorrect submissions in relation

with the observations of this Hon'ble Court in its order dt. 27th September

2023, amount of alleged income earned by petitioner during the period

of deemed suspension, the amount of outstanding subsistence

allowance as per the statement of respondent college and all other facts

which will be effectively countered by the petitioner with documentary

evidence furthermore will be specifically dealt in detail during ,the hearing

of the present contempt petition before this Hon'ble Court, The contents

of the reply dt. 27th February 2024 sent by the respondent college which

are inconsistent with the facts stated by the petitioner on record vide his

various communications and legal notice dt. 20th February 2024 are

specifically denied by the petitioner in toto. The petitioner reiterates that

he was never in any gainful employment of fixed, permanent & regular

nature in the deemed suspension period under the provisions of law.

The meagre amount earned by petitioner for his survival during the

V
 10
79
~eemed suspension period in absence & non-payment of any

subsistence allowance from the respondent college cannot be termed

as gainful employment as per provisions of law and respondent no. 2 &

3 are duty bound to pay the full subsistence allowance to the petitioner

as per the order dt. 27th September 2023.

14. Petitioner states that the legitimate subsistence allowance from 3rd July

2018 till 29th February 2024 as per his calculations is

Rs.45,99,094(Forty-Five Lakh Ninety-nine Thousand and Ninety-Four

Rupees Only with yearly Increment and Rs. 32, 94,094 (Thirty-Two

Lakhs Ninety-Four Thousand and Ninety-Four Rupees Only without

yearly Increment) & thereafter continuation of the same till final order in

the legitimate enquiry if any conducted by respondent college as per the

directio"ns of the Hon'ble High Court after adjustment of amount if any

received by the petitioner from the respondent college vide banking

channel in the said matter.

15. Petitioner beg to prefer the present petition on the following

grounds, which are set out herein and which are without preiudice

to one another: -

a) The petitioner states that the respondent is deliberately not

complying with the directions of this Hon'ble Court vide its order

dt. 27th September 2023 furthermore wilfully delaying the

payment of legitimate subsistence allowance to the petitioner

along with other non-compliance of conducting inquiry as directed

by this Hon'ble court. L_

 11
~/
80
b) The petitioner states that this Hon'ble Court has not directed

petitioner to submit any certificate or other conditions for

compliance of the payment of subsistence allowance vide its

order dt. 27th September 2023.

c) The petitioner further states that the respondent college is

conveniently interpreting the provisions of statute of university of

Mumbai for his own benefit before payment of subsistence

allowance to the petitioner which respondent college never

abided for the payment of the subsistence allowance to the

petitioner before suspending & terminating him in arbitrary

manner

d) The Petitioner states that the Respondent-Management wrongly

and illegally called upon him to furnish the certificate in

consonance with explanation (3) of Section 444 of the Statute

Book of the University of Mumbai as section 444(b) of the Statute

Book of the University of Mumbai mandates as hereunder: -

"If a teacher is suspended a subsistence allowance of an amount

equal to half of the pay drawn by him immediately before his

suspension and in addition, dearness allowance based on such

pay shall be paid to him provided that where the period of

suspension exceeds three months, the authority whic~ made the

order of suspension shall be competent to vary the amount of

subsistence allowance for any period subsequent to the period of

first three months as follows.".

 12
81
e) The petitioner reiterates that the respondent no 2 & 3 deliberately

in the pretext of wrongful interpretation of rules and regulations

are wilfully delaying th_e payment of the subsistence allowance to

the petitioner resulting in wilful contempt of the order passed by

this Hon'ble court.

f) The Petitioner states that his· termination was held to be illegal

and he was considered to be under 'deemed suspension' in

pursuant to the said order of this Hon'ble Court; and his deemed

suspension starts during his service tenure anq hence he was/is

not required to furnish the certificate which is illegally demanded

by the Respondent No.3; and the Petitioner has conveyed the

same via email to the Respondent No.3 on 26th October 2023;

and thus there is ex facie contempt of this Hon'ble Court in wilful

manner committed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

16. The Petitioner states that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

it is fit case for this Hon'ble Court to take cognizance of the

contemptuous act committed by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and all their

officers and assistants concerned. in accordance with the provisions of

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

17. The petitioner will rely on additional grounds if any at the time of final

arguments of the said petition before this Hon'ble Court.

[Link] craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to add, alter, delete,

rescind, or modify any of the above-mentioned grounds and/or

submissions mentioned in the present petition hereinabove with the

leave of this Hon'ble Court. 'L_

 13
82
19. The petitioner states that he has no other alternative & efficacious

remedy other than filing the present petition before this Hon'ble Court.

20. The present writ petition is filed without any delay and latches on the

part of the Petitioner and same is in limitation.

21. The petitioner states that the cause of action in present matter has

arisen in Mumbai therefore this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and

entertain the present contempt petition.

22. Petitioner has paid the requisite court fees for filing the present petition

before this Hon'ble Court.

23. The petitioner states that No other petition or any other petition seeking

similar reliefs is/are pending before any other Court save and except the

present petition filed before this Hon'ble Court.

24. THE PETITIONER THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYS THAT:

a) Rule nisi may be issued;

b) That the respondent no 2 & 3 may be held responsible for

committing wilful & deliberate breach, non-compliance & contempt

of the order dt. 27th September 2023 in Writ Petition bearing

No.10472 of 2022 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act

1971.

c) That all the officers, trustees, employees & agents etc. of

respondent no 2 & 3 and all others persons who are responsible for

committing the wilful contempt of the order dt. 27th September 2023

in Writ Petition bearing No.10472 of 2022 may be held guilty &

punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

y
 14
83
d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order,

or direction thereby directing respondent no 2 & 3 to forthwith

comply with the order dt. 27th September 2023 in Writ Petition

bearing No. 10472 of 2022.

e) Ad-interim & interim order in terms of prayer clause {d),

hereinabove, be granted.

f) Any further and equitable orders be pass~d in favour of the

Petitioner in the circumstances of the case as may be required.

Dated this '3,r,:fDay of April 2024 at Mumbai.

V
Prashant Nayak Subra~ahoo
{Advocate for the Petitioner) {Petitioner)

I
. '

VERIFICATION
I, Subrat Kumar Sahoo, aged 51 years, the petitioner above named

residing at the address mentioned above do hereby solemnly declare

that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs from 1 to 14 of the

,:·.

present Petition is true to my own knowledge and paragraphs from 15

to 24 which I believe the same to true.

Solemnly declared at Mo~bai this Day of April 2024.

y
I

RI 0/
Identified by me ff/
Prashant Nayak
{Advocate for the Petitioner)

c ()3
Section Officer,
)el{\~
.J
High Court, }\ppeHate Side
Bombay
 84
2024:BHC-AS:36898
ANNEXURE P-6
Shubhada S Kadam [Link]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 283 OF 2024
in
WRIT PETITION NO. 10472 OF 2022

Subrat Kumar Sahoo … Petitioner

versus
MR. Thakur Jitendra Singh, Secretary, Thakur …. Respondents
Educational Trust and anr.

Mr. Prashant Nayak, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Arun Panickar along with Mr. Vinay Nair, Advocate for Respondents.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

P.C. :

1. The petitioner claims that respondents have failed and

neglected to comply with the order dated 27th September 2023 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.10472 of 2022.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that this

Court by passing above order had directed conduct of fresh inquiry

against the petitioner and during the period till his services are terminated,

he was directed to be paid subsistence allowance as per

rules/regulations. The petitioner contends that the respondent-college did

Digitally
signed by
not conduct a lawful inquiry and as such committed contempt of the order
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR
SHANKAR
KADAM
KADAM
Date: of this Court. Similarly, the grievance is made with regard to non-payment
2024.09.13
18:53:53
+0530
of subsistence allowance and it is further claimed that subsistence

1/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:31 :::

Shubhada S Kadam [Link]
85
allowance sought to be offered by the respondents was meagre and,

hence, it was refused by the petitioner. It is the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by this Court dated

27th September 2023, though does not mention in operative part about

conducting fresh inquiry, however, as observed in the body of the order, it

was incumbent on the part of the respondents to conduct fresh inquiry and

to pay subsistence allowance during the period of inquiry till his services

are terminated. It is argued that the respondents were duty bound under

this order to make payment of subsistence allowance, however, an

amount of Rs.4,14,780/- only was offered. This according to him amounts

to contempt of court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the said

contention by drawing attention of the Court to the order passed by this

Court, wherein according to him, there is no direction to conduct any fresh

inquiry. It is his submission that was what directed to these respondents

was to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per

rules/regulations during the suspension period from 3rd July 2018 till the

date of passing of final order in inquiry. He drew attention of this Court to

the affidavit-in-reply filed on record which indicates that the services of the

petitioner were terminated on 10th January 2023 and if at all, the petitioner

is aggrieved by the same, he can challenge the said order but the

proceedings of contempt are not tenable. He further drew attention of the

Court to the correspondence entered into between the parties with regard

2/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:31 :::

Shubhada S Kadam [Link]
86
to the payment of subsistence allowance. It is contented that this Court

has categorically directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance

as per the rules/regulations. There is no doubt about the requirement by

the employee to furnish certificate of not being gainfully employed to

receive subsistence allowance. It is submitted though at a later point of

time, such certificate was issued, the respondents have obtained

evidence under Right to Information Act 2005 indicating that the petitioner

was gainfully employed and had substantially earned during the period of

his suspension. It is, therefore, submitted that these issues cannot be

gone into contempt petition.

4. The law on the point of contempt of the order of the court is

settled to state that there should be willful disobedience of the order of the

Court and in order to treat same as “contempt”. At this stage, it would be

relevant to refer to the order passed by this Court in writ petition No.10472

of 2022, which is reproduced thus :

“18. I accordingly proceed to pass the following Order:

i) The Tribunal’s Order setting aside termination and granting liberty

for conduct of enquiry is upheld.

ii) Tribunal’s direction for payment of back wages only in the event of
failure to conclude inquiry within 8 months is set aside.

iii) Respondent-Management shall treat Petitioner as under deemed

suspension from 03 July 2018 till finalization of enquiry and
passing of final order. He shall be paid subsistence allowance as
per Rules/Regulations during the suspension period from 03 July
2018 till the date of passing of final order in the inquiry. The
payment of subsistence allowance shall be made by the

3/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:31 :::

Shubhada S Kadam [Link]
87
Respondent-management within a period of four weeks from
today.

iv) Petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the fresh enquiry as well as

the fresh order of punishment by filing appropriate proceedings
before the Tribunal. All contentions in that regard are left open.”

5. Bare perusal of this order clearly indicates that there was no

direction to respondents to conduct fresh inquiry. In fact what has been

held is that the Tribunal’s order of setting aside the termination and

granting liberty for conducting inquiry is upheld. From submissions made

by rival parties, it is clear that two different interpretation of above order is

sought to be done. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of the State of Bihar

versus Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR-1961-SC-221, it is held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court that:

“The second contention urged was that even if on a proper construction

of the order, read in the light of the relevant pleadings, the State
Government was directed to abstain from publishing a notification under
Section 3(1) of the Act, still, if the order was ambiguous and equivocal
and reasonably capable of two interpretations, a party who acted on the
basis of one of such interpretations could not be held to have willfully
disobeyed the order. Stated in these terms, the contention appears
unexceptionable. For its being accepted in any particular case,
however, two conditions have to be satisfied : (1) that the order was
ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one
interpretation, (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not
intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with
his interpretation of the order.'

This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in

Purnendu Mukhopadhyay and Ors. v. V.K. Kapoor and Anr. [2007)

4/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:31 :::

Shubhada S Kadam [Link]
88
12SCALE 549] {See also Maruti Udyog Limitedv. Mahinder C. Mehta
and Ors. [(2007) 11 SCALE 750]}"

In absence of specific directions, it would matter of

interpretation whether fresh arguing is directed to be held. Since two

interpretations are possible here in this case, by following judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court, it cannot be held there is contempt of this order

by not conducting a fresh inquiry. In any case, if the petitioner is

aggrieved by his termination on the said ground, it is open for him to

challenge the same in accordance with law.

6. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner about non-payment

of subsistence allowance is concerned, prima facie perusal of the record

and, in particular, correspondence filed along with reply clearly indicates

that respondents have always offered him subsistence allowance

provided the petitioner submits certificate about not being gainfully

employed. The correspondence indicates that initially no such certificate

was issued, it came to be issued at later point of time. Apart from this,

there is material on record to indicate that the petitioner could be gainfully

employed during this period and has earned substantial amount. In such

circumstances, the issue about the correctness of the offer of subsistence

allowance, cannot be gone into in contempt petition. If the petitioner is

aggrieved by the amount of subsistence allowance, it is open for him to

take appropriate proceedings as provided by law. Suffice it to say that no

case is made out by petitioner to hold that there is willful disobedience of

5/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:32 :::

Shubhada S Kadam [Link]
89
order passed by this court. Hence, contempt petition stands dismissed.

7. This Court has come across with the contempt petitions which

are essentially filed for pressuring the respondents to succumb to the

demands. In the considered opinion of this Court, the instant case is one

of such proceedings. This Court, therefore, would be justified in

dismissing the petition with exemplary costs, however, considering the

fact that the petitioner is an employee who is raising issue about his

termination etc, this Court refrains from imposing any costs.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

6/6

::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2024 00:44:32 :::

NDOH:
90
SECTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (C) NO. ______ OF 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: -

SUBRAT KUMAR SAHOO …. PETITIONER

VERSUS

THAKUR EDUCATIONAL TRUST

& ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

INDEX OF FILING

S. NO. PARTICULARS COPIES COURT

FEES
1. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION WITH AFFIDAVIT & 1
VAKALATNAMA

2. ANNEXURE P-1 TO P-6 1

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
3. IN FILING SLP 1

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO BRING ON

4. RECORD ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS 1

FILED ON: - 19.09.2024 FILED BY: -

SUNIL KUMAR MR. KUSH CHATURVEDI

CARD No. 5988 (Advocate - On- Record)
Mob. No. 9650705923 (AOR Card No. 1979)
Office: A-53, Sector 17-A,
Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201301
Mob. No. 9711114870
Email: kushchaturvedi@[Link]
 91

D/9068/2021

Kush Chaturvedi

(Subrat Kumar Sahoo)

27.09.2024
 MEMO OF PARTIES 92

Filed By: -

Place: - New Delhi Kush Chaturvedi

Date: - 27.09.2024 Advocate for the Petitioner