- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent 3 who is the affected person and we proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(3.) The respondent, Shri V. M. Soundalgekar, was a Lecturer in the department of Mathematics in the Indian Institute of Technology at bombay. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against him in 1981. A retired Chief Presidency Magistrate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report to the Board of governors on 19/12/1981. According to him, all the charges framed against the respondent stood proved. The respondent filed a writ petition but it was dismissed as the enquiry had been completed by the time the writ petition came up for hearing. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Board of governors of the institute, considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and accepted his findings. On 6/03/1982 a letter was addressed to respondent 3 intimating the decision of the Board of governors and proposing a penalty of removal from service and calling upon him to show cause why such a penalty should not be imposed upon him. The respondent submitted a reply to the show cause notice, after considering which the board of governors, on 2/08/1982, came to the conclusion that the respondent should be removed from service. An appeal to the Visitor to the Institute, i. e. the President of India, also failed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by respondent 3 in the High court. A Division bench of the Bombay High court, on 10/10/1990, delivered judgment setting aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer and quashing the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order passed by the Visitor of the Institute. The Institute has come up in appeal before us.;