Shrikrishna S/O Sitaram Dahare vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 129 Bom

   wp6682.16                                                                  1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT PETITION  NO.  6682  OF  2016

  Shrikrishna S/o Sitaram Dahare,
  aged about 58 years, occupation
  Retired, r/o M-9, 50 MIG Colony,
  Manewada, Vidnyan Nagar,
  Nagpur -34.                                ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary,                  ...   RESPONDENT
     Education Department,
     Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

  2. The Education Officer
     (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
     Nagpur.

  3. Maharashtra Gramhit Shikshan
     Sanstha, through its Secretary,
     Old Subhedar Layout (Sharda
     Chowk), Nagpur - 24.

  4. Adarsh Vidyalaya,
     through its Head Master,
     Gumthala (Gumthi), Post -
     Gumthi, Tahsil & District -
     Nagpur.

  5. The Convener,
     Inquiry Committee, Maharashtra
     Gramhit Shikshan Sanstha,
     Old Subhedar Layout (Sharda
     Chowk), Nagpur - 24.


  Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
  Shri S.P. Deshpande, Additional GP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
                    .....



::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018               ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:57:46 :::
    wp6682.16                                                                          2




                                       CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                 MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

JANUARY 08, 2017.

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

Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Additional GP

for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

2. This Court has on 28.11.2016 issued notice for final

disposal and granted status quo. With the result, departmental

inquiry then going on against the petitioner came to be stayed.

The matter was then considered at some length on 31.01.2017

and this Court passed the following order.

"Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Ms. R. Kalia, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Thengre, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 5.

2. By placing reliance upon judgment of this Court reported at 2006 (6) Mh.L.J. 547 (Shah Babu Education Society .vrs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati) and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (1999) 3 SCC 666 (Bhagirathi Jena .vrs. Board of Directors

O.S.F.C. and others), submission is after superannuation of petitioner on 31.07.2016, departmental enquiry cannot be continued.

3. During hearing we find that though there is a specific ground on these lines in Writ Petition, respondent - Management has not filed any reply about it.

4. In this situation, we grant respondent nos.3 and 4 time of two weeks by way of last chance to point out their say on this issue.

5. List the matter for further consideration on 14.02.2017.

6. Interim relief to continue".

3. Today, when the matter is called out, the learned

Additional GP has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Nobody

appears for other respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

4. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the

petitioner has invited our attention to two judgments quoted

supra. He submits that the petitioner before this Court

superannuated on 31.07.2016, charge sheet was drawn on

01.07.2016 and inquiry did not proceed further till his

superannuation. After superannuation, the petitioner made

representation to his employer and also invited their attention

to above mentioned judgments.

5. The learned Additional GP submits that the dispute

is essentially between the petitioner and his employer.

6. With the assistance of the parties we have perused

the papers. We find that the petitioner has superannuated on

31.07.2016 and as 31.07.2016 happened to be Sunday, he

handed over the charge and was relieved on 30.07.2016.

Thereafter he has made attempts to point out that the inquiry

cannot proceed, though the attempts have failed and the

management has tried to proceed further with the

departmental inquiry. The reply filed by the respondents

before this Court shows that the petitioner, according to them,

is guilty of misconduct.

7. In the light of judgments mentioned supra, it is

apparent that the inquiry cannot be continued beyond

31.07.2016. The employment and service conditions of the

petitioner are regulated by the Maharashtra Employees of

Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981. The very

same Rules are considered by this Court in the judgment in the

case of Shah Babu Education Society vs. Presiding Officer, School

Tribunal, Amravati (supra) and in paragraph 13, in

unequivocal terms it has been held that the provisions of

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of

Service) Regulation Act, 1977 or Rules 1981 do not enable the

employer to continue with the departmental inquiry after

superannuation of the employee. The judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena vs. Board of Directors

O.S.F.C. & Ors., (supra) has been also looked into in that

judgment.

8. In this situation, following the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and acted upon by this Court, we make

Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (1), (2) & (3) in the

petition. The respondent - employer shall accordingly submit

the necessary bills to the office of respondent No. 2 within four

weeks from today along with pension case. Respondent No. 2

shall then process the same within next two months and the

amount found due and payable to the petitioner shall be

released to him within a further period of two months.

9. With these directions, writ petition is partly

allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                      JUDGE
                                              ******

  *GS.