Bombay High Court
Sunil Chandrashekhar Akant vs The Additional Commissioner, ... on 21 August, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
Judgment 1 wp2020.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2020 OF 2015
Sunil Chandrashekhar Akant,
Aged about 52 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o. Anihanagar, Bangaon, Amgaon,
Tah. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad Gondia.
3. Shri Prafull S/o. Devaji Bhalerao,
R/o. Ambedkar Ward, Dist. Gondia.
4. Samarth Ramdas Shikshan Sanstha,
a registered Public Trust under the
provisions of the Societies Registration Act
and Maharashtra Public Trust Act,
through its Vice-President, Ramesh
Pyarelal Ujawane, R/o. Vidya Nagari,
Tah. & Post : Amgaon, Dist. Gondia-02.
5. Ramesh Pyarelal Ujawane,
Aged about major, Occ. : Business,
R/o. Vidya Nagari, Tah & Post :
Amgaon, Dist. Gondia-02.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri R.S.Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms M.A.Barabde, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri A.Y.Kapgate, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
Shri S.Alaspurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
___________________________________________________________________
::: Uploaded on - 24/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 00:55:52 :::
Judgment 2 wp2020.15.odt
CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.
DATED : AUGUST 21, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing
by consent of the parties.
3. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition is
an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Gondia
directing the petitioner who works as Assistant Live Stock Development
Officer in Panchayat Samiti, Deori, District : Gondia, to stop working as
Secretary of the fourth respondent, an educational society/ trust duly
registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The purported basis of the
impugned order is that the petitioner, without previous sanction of the Chief
Executive Officer, engaged directly or indirectly in a trade or business or
undertook an employment with the respondent institution.
4. Rule 14 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services
(Conduct) Rule 1967 prohibits any Parishad servant to engage directly or
Judgment 3 wp2020.15.odt
indirectly in any trade or business or undertake any employment except with
the previous sanction of the Chief Executive Officer or take part in
registration, promotion or management of any Bank or Company registered
under any law for the time being in force. In the respective provisos to sub-
rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 an exception is made in the case of Parishad
servant who may, without such sanction, undertake honorary work of a
social or charitable nature or occasional work of literary, artistic or scientific
character (proviso to sub-rule 1) or take part in the registration, promotion
or management of any charitable society registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 or any other corresponding law for the time being in
force (proviso to sub-rule 2). The proviso to sub-rule (1) is subject to the
condition that the official duties of the servant do not thereby suffer and that
he discontinues such work if so directed by the Chief Executive Officer.
5. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner works as
secretary of respondent No.4 on a remuneration. There is indeed no such
finding in the impugned order. The impugned order is passed exclusively on
the footing that the engagement as secretary was taken up without previous
sanction of the Chief Executive Officer. Respondent No.4 is admittedly a
charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act. If the
petitioner as Parishad servant takes part in its management, the services
rendered by the petitioner come within the exception of the proviso to sub
rule (2) of Rule 14. Even otherwise, there is no restriction for undertaking
Judgment 4 wp2020.15.odt
any honorary work of social or charitable nature so long as official duties
rendered by the Parishad servant do not thereby suffer. These aspects are
completely overlooked by the Chief Executive Officer in the impugned oder.
6. Learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad as also the complainant,
at whose instance the impugned order was passed, submit, firstly, that the
proviso also requires Parishad servants to discontinue any honorary work of
social or charitable nature if so directed by the Chief Executive Officer. It is
submitted that the present order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, in
fact, is a direction to so discontinue the work. There is no merit in this
contention. In the first place, it is quite obvious that the Chief Executive
Officer is empowered to direct the Parishad servant to discontinue his
honorary work of social or charitable nature. But such direction can never be
issued simply on the basis that such honorary work of social or charitable
nature was undertaken without previous sanction of the Chief Executive
Officer, for if the Chief Executive Officer were allowed to do so, it would
make scarce sense of the proviso which excepts honorary work undertaken
by a Parishad servant of a social and charitable nature sans any sanction of
the Chief Executive Officer. Ordinarily, such power of the Chief Executive
Officer is expected to be exercised in a case where such honorary work
interferes with, and impedes, official duties of the Parishad servant. Anyway,
even under the proviso to sub rule (2) of Rule 14, work of management of a
charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act or any other
Judgment 5 wp2020.15.odt
corresponding law for the time being in force, which would include the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, is also clearly excepted and this exception is
not subject to condition of discontinuation of work, if so directed by the Chief
Executive Officer as in the case of the proviso to sub-rule (1).
7. In either view of the matter, the impugned order of the Chief
Executive Officer cannot be sustained. For the same reasons, the appellate
order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
rejecting the petitioner's appeal also suffers from legal infirmities. The
impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, whilst noticing the
appellant's contention that he did not accept any remuneration for managing
the affairs of the charitable society, proceeds to observe that if, whilst
working in government service, the petitioner were to engage in
management of a private institution which runs three schools, such
engagement may result into suffering of his official duties. This is clearly
speculative. That was not the basis on which either the impugned order was
passed, in the first place, or which was brought out before either the Chief
Executive Officer or the Additional Commissioner.
8. In the premises, the impugned orders of the Chief Executive
Officer and the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained.
Judgment 6 wp2020.15.odt
9. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting
aside both the orders. It is however, clarified that the present order does not
come in the way of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad
considering in future whether the official duties to be rendered by the
petitioner as Assistant Live Stock Development Officer of the Panchayat
Samiti actually suffer as a result of the charitable work carried out by the
petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits in this behalf
are kept open.
JUDGE
RRaut..
