Kailash Bholanath Dhengle vs The Education Officer (Sec.
2010 Latest Caselaw 93 Bom

                                                                  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

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

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

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.