Bombay High Court
Pinjari Shaikh Kutbuddin Shaikh ... vs Anjuman Forog-E-Taleem And ... on 29 July, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5566 OF 2014
Pinjari Shaikh Kutbuddin Shaikh Salauddin,
Age-38 years, Occu-Nil,
R/o Varkhedi village,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Anjuman Forog-E-Taleem,
(A Registered Public Trust)
Through its President,
363, Sardar Marg, Maulavi Gunj,
At Post Dhule, Dist. Dhule,
2. The President,
Anjuman Forog-E-Taleem,
363, Sardar Marg, Maulavi Gunj,
At Post Dhule, Dist. Dhule,
3. The Head Master,
National Urdu High School,
Azad Nagar, Post Dhule,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule,
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Region, New Administrative
Building, Divisional Commissioner Officer,
Nashik Road, Post Nashik,
Dist. Nashik,
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Post Dhule,
Tq. and Dist. Dhule RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.P.Shah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/07/2016
khs/JULY 2016/5566-d
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner/employee is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 20/03/2014 passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik by which
Misc.Appl.No.18/2012, seeking condonation of delay in preferring an
appeal for challenging the dismissal dated 17/06/2008, has been
rejected.
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Mr.Shah for
the petitioner and Mr.Brahme on behalf of the contesting respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
4. Mr.Brahme has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was
charged with having committed a grave and serious misconduct, an
offence as like of kidnapping of a girl student, outraging her modesty
and illegal confinement. Though he has been acquitted in Cri.Case
No.892/2007, the Management has conducted an independent
disciplinary enquiry under Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules and
after the charges were proved against him, he has been dismissed on
khs/JULY 2016/5566-d
17/06/2008.
5. It is contended that though the petitioner is a teacher and
therefore an educated individual, he has pretended ignorance of law
and has intentionally approached a wrong Forum which is the Dy.
Director of Education for challenging his dismissal on 11/08/2008.
Surprisingly, respondent No.4 allowed his appeal on 11/01/2009.
The Management filed WP No.1403/2009 for challenging the said
judgment. The petition was allowed by this Court on 04/09/2012
and by quashing the judgment of respondent No.4, it concluded that
the remedy available to the petitioner is only by approaching the
School Tribunal u/s 9 of the MEPS Rules.
6. Mr.Brahme, therefore, submits that these facts do not exhibit
innocence on the part of the petitioner. He has intentionally
approached a wrong Forum and has attempted to gain advantage by
doing so.
7. I find from the contentions of the learned advocates that there
is no dispute as regards the date of dismissal 17/06/2008, appeal
before respondent No.4 on 11/08/2008, appeal being allowed on
11/01/2009, WP No.1403/2009 being allowed by this Court on
khs/JULY 2016/5566-d
04/09/2012 and the petitioner approaching the School Tribunal u/s
9 of the MEPS Act on 28/09/2012.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Collector, Land
Acquisition Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others [(1987) 2
SCC 107] and in the matter of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs.Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others [2013(12)
SCC 649] has laid down the law that unless the delay caused by a
litigant is intentional and deliberate and laches are attributable to his
conduct, condonation of delay should be dealt with liberally.
9. From the above dates, it is apparent that in about 7 weeks of
his dismissal, the petitioner had approached respondent No.4 and
after this Court allowed the petition of the Management on
04/09/2012, he approached the School Tribunal on 28/09/2012.
10. In the light of the above, I find that the impugned order is
perverse and erroneous. This petition is, therefore allowed.
Impugned order dated 20/03/2014 is quashed and set aside.
11. It may, however, be noted that in the event the petitioner gains
any success in his appeal, the School Tribunal may consider
khs/JULY 2016/5566-d
depriving him of the back wages for the period of delay after hearing
the litigating sides in the matter.
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/JULY 2016/5566-d
