1/4 wp3673.2000.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 3673/2000
Gopal S/o Mangruji Utane,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Shiram Nagar, Tumsar, Tahsil- Tumsar,
Dist. Bhandara ..PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Bhandara
2] Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3] State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
(Through Govt. Pleader, Nagpur) ..RESPONDENTS
=========================================
Shri M.V. Masodkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri M.P. Munshi, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Miss T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
=================================================
Coram: Z.A.
HAQ, J.
Date : 7 December, 2017 th Oral Judgment:-
Heard.
2] The petitioner-employee had been in employment of the Zilla Parishad since 1965. On 16/03/2000, he was promoted as Headmaster. The Superintendent of Prisons, Bhandara informed the Zilla Parishad ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:54:40 ::: 2/4 wp3673.2000.odt that the petitioner was arrested on 27/05/1999 and was in custody till 08/06/1999. After receiving this information, as the petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours, he was suspended by an order dated 27/04/2000. Another order was issued on 27/04/2000 cancelling the order of promotion of the petitioner. According to the Zilla Parishad, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was in custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999 and as the Zilla Parishad was not aware that the petitioner was in custody and the promotion order was issued to the petitioner without noticing this relevant fact, the promotion order was cancelled on getting the information that the petitioner was in custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999. Though the order dated 27/04/2000 does not show that the promotion order dated 16/03/2000 was cancelled as it was issued without the taking notice that the petitioner was in custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999, the learned advocate for the respondent no. 1-Zilla Parishad has pointed out that an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which one of the charge was that the petitioner had suppressed from the office that he was arrested, and in the inquiry it was proved that the petitioner had suppressed this relevant and important fact from the office.
3] The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:54:40 :::
3/4 wp3673.2000.odt
denial of the promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he was in custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999 is not justified and in any case, the petitioner was entitled for the promotion as he is acquitted by the Court on 15/09/2008. In normal course, the submission is worth consideration however, in the facts of the present case it cannot be accepted. The promotion order was issued to the petitioner much after the period of petitioner's custody and admittedly, the employer was not having the knowledge that the petitioner was in custody for almost 12 days. It would have been a different thing had the promotion order been issued by the employer with knowledge that the petitioner was in custody prior to the issuance of the promotion order. The acquittal of the petitioner is also not relevant as the acquittal is on 15/09/2008 and the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation in March, 2003. 4] Another submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he was promoted as lecturer in Junior College in 1978 and by the order dated 27/04/2000, he is reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the post of Assistant Teacher and the post of lecturer in Junior College are different and that the petitioner suffered any monetary loss because of the order dated 27/04/2000. In the absence of the relevant material on record, it ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:54:40 ::: 4/4 wp3673.2000.odt is not possible for this Court to examine this grievance of the petitioner. 5] After considering the material on record, I find that the learned Additional Commissioner has properly dealt with the relevant aspects. The impugned order does not require any interference by this Court in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE A n s a r i ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 23:54:40 :::