Bombay High Court
Shri Satish Govindrao Surankar vs The Education Officer (Sec.) ... on 1 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 3905.16 (J) .odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3905 OF 2016
Shri Satish Govindrao Surankar,
Aged 44 years, Occupation-Service,
Headmaster, Swa. Dakhane Vidyalaya,
Murumgaon, Tah. Dhanora,
District-Gadchiroli. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
2] Shri K.R. Dakhane, Adivasi Vikas
Shikshan Sanstha, Murumgaon,
Tah. Dhanora, District-Gadchiroli,
through its Secretary. .. Respondents
..........
Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli cancelling the
approval to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year
1996 and in the year 2006, the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Headmaster. The Education Officer granted approval to the promotion of the
petitioner on the post of Headmaster. According to the petitioner, the services
of Shri Chincholkar, an Assistant Teacher were terminated by the respondent
no.2 and the School Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Shri Chincholkar and
directed the management to reinstate him in service. According to the
petitioner, the management reinstated Shri Chincholkar in service and sent his
proposal to the Education Officer for grant of approval. The petitioner also
sent the proposal to the Education Officer for grant of approval to the services
of Shri Chincholkar from the date of his appointment. It is the case of the
petitioner that on an assumption that the petitioner was not obeying the orders
of the Education Officer, the Education Officer, after hearing the petitioner,
cancelled the approval to his promotion on the post of Headmaster, by the
impugned order dated 24.5.2016.
Shri Shende, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
the Education Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.
It is submitted that the approval to the promotion of the petitioner on the post
of Headmaster could not have been cancelled for the reasons recorded in the
impugned order. It is stated that the Education Officer has cancelled the
approval on the ground that the petitioner was not obeying the orders of the
Education Officer and had not complied with the directions issued by the
School Tribunal in the case of Shri Chincholkar. It is stated that by only giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting an enquiry
against the petitioner, the Education Officer has wrongly held that the
petitioner was guilty of not opening the provident fund account of Shri
Chincholkar and not submitting the regular salary bills of the employees to the
concerned authority. It is stated that only the management can take action
against an employee if the management is of the view that the employee has
misconducted himself and action could be taken by the education authorities
against an employee only in the circumstances mentioned in Section 4A of the
Maharashtra Employees Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977.
It is submitted that the impugned order is passed by the Education Officer
without any authority of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the Education Officer, submitted that the petitioner was not obeying
the orders of the School Tribunal and the education authorities and hence the
Eduction Officer decided to cancel the approval to the promotion of the
petitioner on the post of Headmaster. It is, however, fairly stated that the
petitioner was not proceeded under any of the provisions of the Act or the
rules and the impugned order is passed only after hearing the petitioner.
It appears, on a reading of the impugned order, that the Education
Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Only after giving
an opportunity of hearing to an employee of a school against which the
management is not desirous of taking any adverse action, the Education
Officer cannot pass an order cancelling his/her approval. If the petitioner was
not following the orders of the education authorities, it would be for the
education authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in
accordance with law. If the petitioner was not following the orders of the
Tribunal, it would be for the Tribunal to take appropriate action against the
petitioner and it would not be for the Education Officer to cancel the approval
of the petitioner without resorting to any of the provisions of the Act. In the
instant case, the management is not desirous of taking action against the
petitioner and the impugned order is passed by the Eduction Officer solely on
the complaints made by Shri Chincholkar and some other persons against the
petitioner.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. Since the impugned order is set
aside, it is needless to mention that the respondent-Education Officer should
release the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioner within six weeks and
pay the regular salary to the petitioner from the month of December, 2016.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
