Bombay High Court
Vidyashakti Shikshan Prasarak ... vs Pramod Daulatrao Shinde And ... on 3 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 12256/15
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12256/2015
1 Vidyashakti Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal, Kosa, Tq. Sengaon
Dist. Hingoli.
(Through its Secretary)
Bengal Bhaskar Ramrao
Age : 50 yrs, Occu : Secretary
ig R/o: Vidyashakti Shikshan Prasarak
Mandal
Kosa Tq. Sengaon Dist. Hingoli.
2
Vidyaniketan Secondary and Higher
Secondary Vidyala, Kosa
Tq. Sengaon Dist. Hingoli,
(Through its Head Master)
...Petitioners...
Versus
1 Pramod S/o Daulatrao Shinde
Age 35 years, Occu: Nil,
R/o : At Gogari, Post: Sonala
Tq. Mangrulpir Dist. Washim.
2
The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Hingoli.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri D.R. Korde, AGP for respondent no.2.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 03.03.2016
WP 12256/15
- 2 -
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] While issuing notice on 22.12.2015, this Court
had noted the submissions of the learned Advocate for the
petitioners as under:-
"2] Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, submits that the application
Exhibit18 was filed by the Petitioner Management
before the School Tribunal informing the School
Tribunal that they are withdrawing the written
termination order dated 31.07.2014 and would
follow the provisions of the MEPS Act, 1977 in
conducting a proper enquiry against Respondent
No.1/ Employee. He would be treated as being
under suspension, would be paid subsistence
allowance and hence, the appeal may be disposed
of. The said application has been rejected by the
impugned order.
3] Shri Godbole tenders across the Bar a copy of
the communication dated 21.01.2015 by which the
order of termination dated 31.07.2014 was
recalled. The same is marked as Exhibit X for
identification."
2] Shri Godbole, learned Advocate for the
petitioners reiterates that the termination order dated
31.7.2014 has been withdrawn with effect from 21.1.2015.
The appeal had, therefore, become infructuous and the
WP 12256/15
- 3 -
Tribunal should have merely disposed of the appeal as
there was no cause of action. The application filed by
the petitioners was erroneously rejected by the Tribunal
vide the impugned order.
3] Shri Barlinge, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of respondent no.1, submits that unless the
petitioners seek appropriate permission from the
Education Officer for suspending the services of
respondent no.1 pending disciplinary proceedings, no
suspension can be presumed or ordered even by this Court.
By the withdrawal of the order of termination dated
21.1.2015, respondent no.1 stands reinstated in service
from 31.1.2014 and will be entitled to draw full wages
till he is placed under suspension after seeking
appropriate permission of the Education Officer under
Rule 35 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, which prescribes the
conditions of suspension.
4] He, therefore, submits that he would be entitled
to full wages till the management succeeds in obtaining
the permission of the Education Officer to suspend
respondent no.1 pending disciplinary proceedings. He
further submits that the petitioner - management is a
WP 12256/15
- 4 -
grant-in-aid institution and can forward the bills for
the payment of monthly salary till respondent no.1 is
suspended, to the Education Officer and the same can be
granted. He, however, submits that if the Education
Officer takes time in deciding the fate of the salary
bills, the management ought to pay the salary to
respondent no.1 subject to reimbursement / adjustment
after the salary bills are sanctioned by the Education
Officer.
5] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates and have gone through the impugned order.
6] I quite see that a peculiar situation has been
raised in this petition. The petitioner - management has
withdrawn the order of termination dated 31.7.2014 with
effect from 21.1.2015. However, the management does not
seem to have made any efforts to direct respondent no.1
either to report for duties or make his monthly salary
available. Had the petitioners immediately reinstated
respondent no.1 - employee and had directed him to resume
duties forthwith, the bona-fides of the petitioners could
have been appreciated better.
7] There is no dispute that without compliance of
WP 12256/15
- 5 -
Rule 35 of the 1981 Rules, the petitioners cannot place
an employee under suspension. Learned AGP Shri Korde has
rightly indicated from the contents of Rule 35(4) of the
1981 Rules that in the event the management suspends an
employee without obtaining permission from the Education
Department, the management has to pay the suspension
allowance even for the first four months or till such
permission is obtained.
8] I quite see that the School Tribunal could have
disposed of the appeal by its order dated 19.6.2015
considering the above fact situation. However, it has
dismissed the application (Exh.18) filed by the
petitioners praying for disposal of the appeal as no
cause of action survived.
9] In the light of the above and in order to
balance the equities, I am partly allowing this petition
by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.6.2015
passed by the School Tribunal below Exhibit 18 on the
following conditions:-
[a] Appeal No.51/2014 shall stand disposed of
forthwith.
[b] The petitioner - management shall be liable
WP 12256/15
- 6 -
to pay full salary of respondent no.1 - employee
from 31.7.2014 till 19.6.2015 within a period of
one month from today with the liberty to forward
the salary bills of respondent no.1, for this
period, for grant of salary bills to the
competent authority of the Education Department.
[c] The payment of salary within one month for
the above period shall not be delayed awaiting
the decision of the concerned Officer dealing
with the salary bills.
[d] Since the petitioners contemplate
disciplinary proceedings under Rules 36 and 37
afresh, respondent no.1 shall be treated to be
under suspension with effect from 20.6.2015 for a
period of four months and thereafter shall be
entitled for 75% suspension allowance till the
same is continued.
[e] The suspension allowance from 20.6.2015
till today shall be paid by the management within
two months and shall be at liberty to forward an
application for seeking approval to the
suspension.
WP 12256/15
- 7 -
[f] The suspension allowance already paid shall
be adjusted against the sanction of the bills
granted by the Education Department.
[g] The petitioners shall accordingly commence
the disciplinary proceedings in due deference to
Rules 36 and 37 of the 1981 Rules.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c331611.doc
