Bombay High Court
The President Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Other on 12 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6221 OF 2015
The President,
Rashtriya Shikshan Samittee,
C/o Bharat Vidyalaya,
Shakti Nagar Nanded, Dist.Nanded,
Through its President,
Purushottam S/o Manohar Mahajan,
Age-84 years, Occu-Nil PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Latur Division, Latur,
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Nanded, Dist. Nanded,
4. The Headmaster,
Bharat Vidyalaya, Shakti Nagar, Nanded,
Dist.Nanded,
5. Gajanan S/o Madhukarrao Yennawar,
Age-36 years, Occu-Teacher,
R/o Mahavir Chowk, CIDCO,
Nanded, Dist.Nanded,
6. Gajanan S/o Hariprasad Hasanpalli,
Age-37 years, Occu-Teacher,
R/o Hariom Niwas, Bhagyashree Society,
Vasarani Nanded, Dist.Nanded,
7. Laxman S/o Gyanoba Doke,
Age-49 years, Occu-Teacher,
R/o Siddharth Nagar, Taroda (Bk.)
Nanded, Dist.Nanded,
khs/April 2016/6221-d
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:02:43 :::
2
8. Santosh S/o Nandkumar Tuptewar,
Age-38 years, Occu-Teacher,
R/o Dr.Handiwala, 16, Shastri Nagar,
Nanded, Dist.Nanded.
9. Rajiv So Madhavrao Hingamire,
Age-52 years, Occu-Peon,
R/o Old Kautha, Nanded,
Dist.Nanded RESPONDENTS
Mr.M.V.Ghatge, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr.A.V.Patil-Indrale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 to 9.
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 12/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner/Management is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 05/12/2014 delivered by respondent No.2 / Deputy Director of
Education, by which the order of punishment dated 15/03/2014,
thereby permanently stopping 2 annual increments of respondent
Nos. 5 to 9, has been interfered with.
3. The petitioner submits that departmental enquiries under the
khs/April 2016/6221-d
MEPS Act and the Rules were conducted against respondent Nos. 5
to 9 (hereinafter referred to as the employees). They did not
participate in the enquiry and virtually boycotted it. Orders of
punishment dated 15/03/2014 were issued. Said orders were
challenged by the employees before respondent No.2 leading to the
impugned order.
4.
Grievance is that a single line order has been passed by
respondent No.2 thereby quashing the orders of punishment.
Mr.Ghatge, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
President of the petitioner/Institution was a party to the proceedings
before respondent No.2. He represented the Institution along with
respondent No.4 / Headmaster. He has filed this petition on
24/12/2014 when he was the Chairman/President.
5. As a response to the affidavit in reply filed by the employees
contending that the petitioner President no longer occupies the said
position, Mr.Ghatge submits that his change report of 2008 by virtue
of which he became the President has been rejected by the Assistant
Charity Commissioner on 12/05/2015. Proceedings in that regard
are pending. Nevertheless, as on the date of filing of this petition, he
had the authority to represent the Institution.
khs/April 2016/6221-d
6. Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.4 / Head Master submits that the submissions of the
petitioner are correct. He was representing the Institution alongwith
respondent No.4 before respondent No.2 / Authority. He further
submits that respondent No.4 is supporting the petitioner in this
petition since a single sentence order has been passed by respondent
No.2.
7. Mr.Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
employees has strenuously supported the impugned order. His
primary grievance is that as on date, Mr.P.M.Mahajan has filed this
petition unauthorizedly. Mr.Mahajan has no authority to represent
the Institution. There are two factions in the Trust. Elections had
taken place in 2008. Mr.Mahajan claims to have been elected and so
does the rival group. Change reports of 2008 filed by both the
factions have been rejected on 12/05/2015.
8. He further submits that the employees are being harassed
owing to the internal squabbles in the Trust. The two factions are
committing injustice on the employees who are suffering owing to the
dispute amongst the two groups.
khs/April 2016/6221-d
9. He further submits that the authority of Mr.Mahajan has been
questioned before respondent No.2. The departmental enquiries have
not been conducted by adhering to Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS
Rules. Punishment imposed on the employees is not provided either
under the MEPS Act or its rules.
10.
He further submits that the State Awardee Teacher namely
G.M.Sonkamble who was appointed on the Enquiry Committee, was
removed from the Committee on the complaints filed by the
employees, by order dated 20/01/2014 passed by respondent No.3/
Education Officer. Yet, Mr.Sonkamble continued to participate in the
enquiry which in itself renders the enquiries vitiated.
11. Mr.Patil has placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned
Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Kewalram Tulshiram
Kiranapure Vs.Manoharbhai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and
others,2011(5) BCR 516=2011(4) Mh.L.J.760 and the judgment of the
Hon'be Apex Court in the matter of Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal, 2002
AIR SC 33.
12. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2
khs/April 2016/6221-d
and 3 supports the impugned order.
13. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates
and have gone through the judgments cited by Mr.Patil.
14. Issue as regards the dispute between the two factions of the
petitioner / society is still subjudice after the rejection of two change
reports on 12/05/2015. Mr.P.M.Mahajan, representing the petitioner,
has also represented the petitioner before respondent No.2.
Respondent No.4 / Head Master supports the petitioner in this
petition as well as in the proceedings before respondent No.2.
15. Though this dispute of Authority is raised before respondent
No.2, same has not been dealt with by him while passing the
impugned order. There is no verdict as to whether Mr.P.M.Mahajan,
has the authority to represent the petitioner or respondent No.2.
16. I have considered the impugned order. To say the least, this
single sentence order setting aside the orders of punishment is a
clear indication of the casual attitude and non application of mind on
the part of respondent NO.2 / Deputy Director, Education, Latur. It
is quite astonishing as to how could his conscience allow him to pass
khs/April 2016/6221-d
such type of an order. There is no discussion of the rival
submissions and there is no adjudication on the issues raised. Such
a cryptic order ought not to survive even for a minute.
17. In so far as the submissions of Mr.Patil that the imposition of
punishment of permanent stoppage of two annual increments is not
provided for in the MEPS Act and the Rules is concerned, the same
ought to be decided by respondent No.2. So also, Mr.Patil's
submission that the cause of action put forth by the employees under
Rule 29 and accompanying Rules under the 1981 MEPS Rules
empowers respondent No.2 to adjudicate upon the said issue is
concerned, the same also will have to be considered by respondent
No.2 in the light of the view taken by the learned Division Bench of
this Court in the matter of Kewalram Tulshiram (supra).
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.12 of its judgment
delivered in Roshan Deen case (supra) has observed as under :-
"We are greatly disturbed by the insensitivity refelected in
the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in
a case where judicial mind would be tempted to utilize all
possible legal measures to impart justice to a man mutilated so
khs/April 2016/6221-d
outrageously and extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under
Article 227 of the Constitution. Time and again this Court has
reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and
not to thwart it. (vide State of Uttar Pradesh V. District Judge,
Unnao and others, AIR 1984 SC 1401). The very purpose of
such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is
that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the
law. The look out of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to
pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see
whether injuries has resulted on account of any erroneous
interpretation of law. If justice became the by product of an
erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase
such justice in the name of correcting the error of law."
19. I am in respectful agreement with the observations as
reproduced above. However, the distinguishing feature in the case in
hand is that respondent No.2 has abdicated his authority and has
practically declined to consider the rival submissions and the issues
raised. It is beyond comprehension as to what prompted respondent
No.2 to pass such a cryptic order which is totally perverse and
unsustainable. There is no adjudication at all on the issues raised
by the litigating sides. I, therefore, find that the view taken by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the Roshan Deen Case (supra) would be of no
assistance to the employees.
khs/April 2016/6221-d
20. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 05/12/2014 is quashed and set aside and all
the appeals filed by the respondents/employees are remitted back to
respondent No.2 with the following directions :-
[a] The litigating sides shall appear before respondent No.2 on
25/04/2016 at 11.00 a.m. Formal notices need not be issued.
[b] Respondent No.2 shall decide the appeals filed by the
respondents/employees after considering the rival submissions
and on their own merits.
[c] The following issues, besides any other issues raised by the
litigating sides, shall be decided by respondent No.2 ;
(i) whether the State Awardee Teacher, upon being
removed by the Enquiry Committee, could have still
continued as a Member of the Enquiry Committee.
(ii) Whether the enquiry conducted by the Management is
in compliance of Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules.
(iii) Whether the punishment imposed upon the employees
is provided as a form of punishment under the MEPS Act
and/or Rules.
(iv) Whether Mr.Purushottam Manohar Mahajan can
khs/April 2016/6221-d
represent the petitioner/Management ?
(v) Whether the Head Master can represent the
Management ?
[d] Respondent No.2 shall decide the appeals of the employees as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3
(three) months from the date of appearance of the parties in the
matter.
[e] All contentions of the litigating sides are kept open.
21. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/6221-d
