Bombay High Court
Gopal Mangruji Utane,Tumsar vs Zilla Parishad Bhandara & 2 Others on 7 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1/4 wp3673.2000.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 3673/2000
Gopal S/o Mangruji Utane,
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Shiram Nagar, Tumsar, Tahsil- Tumsar,
Dist. Bhandara ..PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Bhandara
2] Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur
3] State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
(Through Govt. Pleader, Nagpur) ..RESPONDENTS
=========================================
Shri M.V. Masodkar, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri M.P. Munshi, Advocate for the respondent no. 1
Miss T.H. Khan, AGP for the respondent nos. 2 and 3
=================================================
Coram: Z.A.
HAQ, J.
Date : 7
December, 2017
th
Oral Judgment:-
Heard.
2] The petitioner-employee had been in employment of the Zilla
Parishad since 1965. On 16/03/2000, he was promoted as Headmaster.
The Superintendent of Prisons, Bhandara informed the Zilla Parishad
2/4 wp3673.2000.odt
that the petitioner was arrested on 27/05/1999 and was in custody till
08/06/1999. After receiving this information, as the petitioner was in
custody for more than 48 hours, he was suspended by an order dated
27/04/2000. Another order was issued on 27/04/2000 cancelling the
order of promotion of the petitioner. According to the Zilla Parishad, the
petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was in custody from
27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999 and as the Zilla Parishad was not aware
that the petitioner was in custody and the promotion order was issued to
the petitioner without noticing this relevant fact, the promotion order
was cancelled on getting the information that the petitioner was in
custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999. Though the order dated
27/04/2000 does not show that the promotion order dated 16/03/2000
was cancelled as it was issued without the taking notice that the
petitioner was in custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999, the learned
advocate for the respondent no. 1-Zilla Parishad has pointed out that an
inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which one of the charge
was that the petitioner had suppressed from the office that he was
arrested, and in the inquiry it was proved that the petitioner had
suppressed this relevant and important fact from the office.
3] The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that
3/4 wp3673.2000.odt
denial of the promotion to the petitioner on the ground that he was in
custody from 27/05/1999 till 08/06/1999 is not justified and in any
case, the petitioner was entitled for the promotion as he is acquitted by
the Court on 15/09/2008. In normal course, the submission is worth
consideration however, in the facts of the present case it cannot be
accepted. The promotion order was issued to the petitioner much after
the period of petitioner's custody and admittedly, the employer was not
having the knowledge that the petitioner was in custody for almost 12
days. It would have been a different thing had the promotion order been
issued by the employer with knowledge that the petitioner was in
custody prior to the issuance of the promotion order. The acquittal of the
petitioner is also not relevant as the acquittal is on 15/09/2008 and the
petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation in March, 2003.
4] Another submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he was
promoted as lecturer in Junior College in 1978 and by the order dated
27/04/2000, he is reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher. The
petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the post of
Assistant Teacher and the post of lecturer in Junior College are different
and that the petitioner suffered any monetary loss because of the order
dated 27/04/2000. In the absence of the relevant material on record, it
4/4 wp3673.2000.odt
is not possible for this Court to examine this grievance of the petitioner.
5] After considering the material on record, I find that the
learned Additional Commissioner has properly dealt with the relevant
aspects. The impugned order does not require any interference by this
Court in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the
parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
A n s a r i
