Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur

Order Date: 08.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Smt. Shubhada Subhash Shah (Chairman), Babaso Bhimrao Patil (Vice Chairman), Kisan Jagganath Gavali (Secretary), Audumbar Jyoti Jadhav (Principal), and Shri Atul Shankar Ingale, all office‑bearers of Vidya Vikas Mandal, Mangalwedha, Solapur district.
  • Respondents: 1) Shri Prashanth Gaurishankar Rajmane, former junior clerk employed since 03.05.1999 and terminated on 12.08.2015; 2) Shri Umesh Bhauroji Kakade, Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Solapur.
  • Background: The employee filed Appeal No. 02 of 2018 before the University and College Tribunal (U&CT), Pune, which on 12.09.2024 ordered his reinstatement within two months, back‑wages, allowances, and a cost award of Rs 10,000. The management challenged this order via Writ Petition No. 773 of 2025, dismissed on 05.03.2025.
  • The employee then filed Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2024 under Sec 85 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The Tribunal, on 28.03.2025, directed the management to pay a fine of Rs 1,00,000 in aggregate for contravention of its reinstatement order and to comply within one month. The employee was reinstated on 22.04.2025.
  • On further non‑compliance, the employee filed Misc. Application No. 05 of 2025 under the same section. The Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ objection to maintainability (Exhibit 07) on 30.09.2025.
  • The petitioners challenged that order, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to impose conviction or fine, contending that Sec 85 is pari‑materia with Sec 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act (MEPS Act) and that only a Judicial Magistrate First Class can impose such fines.
  • Respondent No. 1 argued that Sec 85 provides a special, quick remedy and that the Tribunal has inherent power to enforce its directions.
  • The judgment reproduces the full text of Sec 85, which provides for a fine of Rs 10,000–Rs 1,00,000 for the first contravention and Rs 5,000–Rs 5,00,000 for subsequent contraventions, plus a daily fine of Rs 500 for continuing violations. No imprisonment is prescribed.
  • The court analyses the definition of “offence” under Cr.P.C. Sec 2(n) and the jurisdiction of criminal courts under Sec 26, concluding that Sec 85 does not create a criminal offence requiring criminal‑court jurisdiction.
  • The court distinguishes Sec 85 from Sec 13 of the MEPS Act, which does prescribe imprisonment and a different fine structure, and holds that the two provisions are not pari‑materia.
  • The court cites precedents (Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh v. S.A. Ghode, Municipal Corporation Ludhiana v. Commissioner of Patiala Division, etc.) and determines that the legislative intent of Sec 85 is to give the Tribunal a quasi‑judicial power to levy fines without recourse to criminal courts.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court finds no jurisdictional error or illegality in the Tribunal’s order dated 30.09.2025.
  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of substance; the fine of Rs 1,00,000 remains enforceable.
  • A subsequent prayer for a stay of the fine order is rejected, leaving the order in force.

Topics: Education Law, Fine Enforcement