Bombay High Court
Ashok Barikrao Somwanshi vs Universal Education Academy & ... on 17 November, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/1100/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 1997
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6747 OF 2006
Ashok Barikrao Somwanshi,
Aged 46 years, occ. Service
R/o Takli pidi, Post Pragne Dehere,
Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Universal Education Academy
Bombay (Through its Secretary),
having its office at 40, Veer Nariman
Hashim Building, First Floor,
Bombay 23
2. The Universal Education Academy
Sub-Committee, Chalisgaon, (Through
its Chairman) Shri Y.P.Patil,
R/o Station Road, Chalisgaon.
3. Shri B.N.Pawar,
Head Master, Nalanda Vidyalaya,
Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.
4. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ajinkya Kale h/f Shri S.B.Talekar
Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri P.R.Patil
AGP for Respondent 4 : Shri S.P.Sonpawale
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: November 17, 2016
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the School
WP/1100/1997
Tribunal dated 12.8.1996, by which, his Appeal No. 9 of 1992
challenging his reduction in rank was dismissed.
2. While admitting this petition on 22.4.1997, the learned
Division Bench of this Court refused interim relief to the petitioner.
3. Shri Kale, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has
strenuously criticized the impugned judgment and has formulated his
grounds as under:-
(a) After the charge sheet dated 7.8.1992 was served upon
him, he has requested for extension of time on 25.8.1992 for
submitting a reply and the same was not granted.
(b) The purported letter dated 5.9.1992 written by the
petitioner praying for transfer to the School at Takali and
expressing his inability to continue as Head Master at the
school at Chalisgaon, was obtained under force, duress and
coercion.
(c) His transfer on 20.9.1992 is against Rule 41 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981 ("MEPS Rules" for short).
WP/1100/1997
(d) His transfer at Takali should have been as a Head
Master and not as a Teacher under another person, namely,
D.S.Nikam being the Head Master.
(e) He had promptly filed the complaint to the Education
Officer on 23.9.1992 alleging a forced transfer.
4. The petitioner, therefore, submits that under Rule 41(3), the
transfer of the petitioner could not have affected his pay scale and
should not have resulted into a loss of pecuniary benefits admissible
to him as the Head Master since he was working as a Head Master at
Chalisgaon from 14.6.1976 till 19.11.1992. Even if it is presumed
that he was transferred on his own request, he would have been
entitled to the pay scale as is available to a Head Master even after
his transfer at Takali. He, therefore, prays that the impugned
judgment be quashed and set aside and as the petitioner has
attained the age of superannuation, the difference in the pay scale
be made available to him.
5. Shri Patil, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent / Educational institution submits that there were serious
charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated
7.8.1992. Despite having given an opportunity, the petitioner did
not prefer to submit his reply. He was addicted to liquor and
WP/1100/1997
therefore, his conduct led to various misdeeds which were listed out
in the charge sheet. The management was about to commence the
departmental enquiry against him. To avoid an unceremonious
departmental proceedings, he himself preferred to tender his
request letter dated 5.9.1992, praying for a transfer with immediate
effect. He also declared that he would be responsible for any
pecuniary loss caused to him. Since he had a proper accommodation
at Takali, he preferred to be transferred to Takali. Accordingly, the
management obliged him by doing so.
6. He further submits that the petitioner did not mention in his
appeal that he was the senior most teacher at Takali and desired to
work as Head Master at Takali. He could not have made such a
request since he was addicted to liquor and would not have
functioned properly as Head Master even at Takali. It is in this
peculiar backdrop that he was transferred and later on he has
created a picture of being forced to write a request letter. The
School Tribunal has correctly analyzed the facts and circumstances
of the case and has rightly dismissed the appeal.
7. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone
through the record and proceedings received from the School
Tribunal.
WP/1100/1997
8. There can be no dispute that one of the charges levelled upon
the petitioner was with regard to his addiction and his failure in
performing his duties as the Head Master. The said charge sheet
could have logically led to departmental proceedings against the
petitioner.
9. On perusal of the request letter dated 5.9.1992, it is evident
that the petitioner has stated in the said letter that he prefers to be
transferred at Takali owing to a proper accommodation at the said
place and he was not able to keep good health which was affecting
his performance at Chalisgaon. This letter was acted upon by the
management on 20.9.1992. Thereafter, he has lodged a complaint
to the Education Officer.
10. However, it is not the case of the petitioner, as is evident
from his appeal memo, that the request letter dated 5.9.1992 was
neither written by him nor signed by him. It is merely stated that he
was compelled to write the said letter. So also, the petitioner has
not stated in his appeal that he was the senior-most teacher at
Takali and hence should have been appointed as the Head Master in
place of Shri B.S.Nikam, who was not arrayed as a party respondent
before the Tribunal. In the absence of these pleadings, it cannot be
presumed that the petitioner was the senior most person to be
appointed as a Head Master at Takali.
WP/1100/1997
11. Looking at this case from a different angle, it is evident that
the management had taken a stand the petitioner was addicted to
intoxication and was not performing well as a Head Master and
therefore, leading to the inference that he could not have been
appointed as a Head Master even at Takali, since he was likely to
commit the same misdemeanor at Takali as is alleged to have
occurred at Chalisgaon.
12. Considering the peculiar facts as recorded herein above, and
the fact that the petitioner had accepted the order dated 20.9.1992,
transferring him as an Assistant Teacher at Takali, I do not find that
the School Tribunal has committed any error so as to brand the
impugned judgment as being perverse and erroneous.
13. This Court has refused interim relief to the petitioner on
22.4.1997 and the petitioner has now superannuated. I, therefore,
do not find it appropriate to accept the request of the petitioner
that he should be paid difference in salary so as to make good his
loss of pay as a Head Master.
14. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
15. Pending Civil Application stands disposed off.
WP/1100/1997
16. The record and proceedings be returned to the School
Tribunal, Nasik.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
