Ashok Dadaji Gaurkar vs The Chief Executive Officer, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6942 Bom

     WP 4680.16 (J) .odt                            1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                    
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                            
                              WRIT PETITION NO.4680 OF 2016

     Ashok Dadaji Gaurkar,




                                                           
     Age 52 yers,
     Occupation-Graduate Teacher,
     R/o. Pandharkawda, Tahsil-
     Kelapur, District-Yavatmal.                             ..             Petitioner 




                                                  
                              ig    .. Versus ..


     1]     The Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
                            
            District-Yavatmal.

     2]     The Education Officer,
            Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal,
      

            District-Yavatmal.                               ..             Respondents
   



                              ..........
     Shri P.S. Kshirsagar, counsel for the petitioner,
     Shri J.Y. Ghurde, counsel for the respondents.
                              .......... 





                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK  AND
                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : DECEMBER 05, 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.

The petitioner was appointed as High School Teacher in the Zilla

Parishad. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the charges that

the petitioner had detained Shri Devanand Pawar and Sahebrao Pawar and

was also conducting private coaching classes. After the culmination of the

enquiry, the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner and one increment of

the petitioner was stopped. The petitioner has challenged the said order

before the Chief Executive Officer in appeal. The appeal is still pending.

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents have again suspended the

petitioner by the impugned order on the same charges for which he was

punished.

Shri Kshirsagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that the petitioner cannot be suspended after the departmental enquiry against

the petitioner is concluded and the penalty of stoppage of one increment is

imposed upon the petitioner. It is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner

against the order imposing penalty is pending and the Zilla Parishad could not

have again suspended the petitioner on the same charges. It is stated that an

employee cannot be penalised twice for the same charges.

Shri Ghurde, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that

during the pendency of the writ petition, though the order of suspension is not

formally revoked, the petitioner is reinstated in service. It is stated that an

order of suspension would not be a punishment.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the

impugned order cannot be sustained, as the same is clearly illegal. The

petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry on the charges

that he had detained Shri Devanand Pawar and Sahebrao Pawar and he was

also conducting private coaching classes. If penalty is imposed upon the

petitioner on the culmination of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner

cannot be again suspended on the same charges. It is rightly submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that an employee cannot be penalised twice for the

same charges. Though the respondents have reinstated the petitioner in

service and rightly so, the respondents did not revoke the order of suspension,

which the respondents ought to have revoked.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order of suspension is quashed and set aside. The respondents are

directed to take steps to release the arrears of salary to the petitioner at the

earliest.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to

costs.

                                      JUDGE                                       JUDGE





     Gulande, PA