1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.4865/2010
Kailash Bholanath Dhengle,
R/o Jain Talkies, Near Telephone Office,
Samrat Computer, Chandrapur. ..Petitioner
..V/s..
1. The Education officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
2. Adarsha Shikshan Mandal, Chandrapur,
through its President,
C/o. Headmaster, Chhotubhai Patel
Highschool, Shivaji Chowk,
Mahakali Mandir Road, Chandrapur.
3. Chhotubhai Patel Highschool,
Shivaji Chowk, Mahakali Mandir
Road, Chandrapur, through its
Headmaster. ..Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.N. Shende, Adv. for petitioner.
Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent no.1.
Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Adv. for respondent no.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- S.A. BOBDE & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
DATED :- 26th OCTOBER, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT (per S.A. Bobde, J.)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16/9/2010 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:35 ::: 2 issued by the Headmaster thereby placing the petitioner under suspension.
3. Shri Shende, learned counsel for petitioner, has submitted that the Headmaster had no authority to suspend the petitioner because such power is vested with the management under sub-rule 1 of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 which runs as follows -
"35. Conditions of suspension.
(1) In cases where the Management desires to suspend an employee, he shall be suspended only with the prior approval of the appropriate authority mentioned in rule 33."
4. Sub-rule 1 of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 contemplates that an employee can be suspended with the prior approval of the appropriate authority "where the Management desires to suspend an employee". This shows that the real authority to suspend an employee vests in the management. Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 does not contemplate who should issue the suspension order. In ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:35 ::: 3 the circumstances, a suspension order may be issued by the Management or by a person authorized by the Management to do so. In the present case, we find, that there is a resolution dated 10th of September 2010 to the effect that it would be appropriate to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Management has issued a letter of authority to the Headmaster dated 15th of September 2010 directing him to execute the resolution of the Management and to place the petitioner under suspension.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Headmaster is not a 'Chief Executive Officer' as contemplated by Clause (c) of Rule 2 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 which defines the Chief Executive Officer as follows -
"Chief Executive Officer" means the Secretary, Trustee, Correspondent or a person by whatever name called who is empowered to execute the decisions taken by Management."
6. We find that the definition does not prohibit the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:35 ::: 4 Management from empowering any person other than the Secretary, Trustee or a Correspondent to execute its decision. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Tambaskar.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:34:35 :::