Bhaurao Mahadeorao Kawale vs State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 680 Bom

   wp2299.00                                                                        1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT PETITION  NO.  2299  OF  2000

  Bhaurao s/o Mahadeorao Kawale,
  aged about 58 years, occupation -
  Service, Incharge Head Master,
  upper Primary School, Digdoh
  (Devi), Tah. Hingna, District -
  Nagpur (r/o Sawangi (Devali),
  Post - Amgaon, Tah. Hingna,
  District - Nagpur.                               ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. State of Maharashtra
     through the Collector,
     Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur.

  2. Chief Executive Officer,
     Zilla Parishad, Civil Lines,
     Nagpur.

  3. The Education Officer (Primary),
     Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.                       ...   RESPONDENTS


  Shri B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Ms. Ritu V. Kalia, AGP for respondent No. 1.
                      .....
                                CORAM :      B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

MARCH 10, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Heard Shri Kharkate, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms. Kalia, learned AGP for respondent No. 1.

Nobody appears for other respondents.

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned AGP, we have perused the records. The

petitioner, under suspension at the relevant time, on account of

pending criminal prosecution, was reinstated after acquittal. He

claims promotion as regular Head Master from 21.05.1999 with

all consequential benefits.

3. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have filed reply affidavit.

They pointed out that the petitioner was involved in an offence

punishable under Sections 143, 448, 294, 506 and 427 of the

Indian Penal Code. He was suspended on 02.09.1998. On

23.04.1999, the petitioner informed that Criminal Case No. 366

of 1998 for above mentioned offences was decided by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) on 15.04.1999

and he was acquitted. Only a photo copy of the order delivered

by the Court was supplied. As there was no certified copy,

respondent Nos. 2 & 3 proceeded to verify the facts and letter

was sent to the concerned Police Station on 14.05.1999.

4. The Departmental Promotion Committee met on

28.04.1999 and though claim of the petitioner surfaced therein

for consideration, as he was under suspension on that day, his

claim could not be looked into.

5. After due verification, suspension was recalled and

the petitioner was reinstated by an order dated 22.06.1999

with effect from 26.06.1999. The petitioner appears to have

superannuated thereafter.

6. The defence taken supra in reply affidavit by the

employer has not been contradicted by the petitioner. This

reply has been filed on 22.06.2005.

7. In this situation, we find no case made out

warranting interference with the order of promotion issued by

the employer on 21.05.1999. Writ Petition is accordingly

dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                       JUDGE
                                        *******
  *GS.