Bombay High Court
Mahendra Rushi Dhawade vs The Education Officer (Sec.), ... on 18 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
1 W.P.No.1526.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1526 OF 2021
Shri Mahendra Rushi Dhawade,
..VS..
The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Anr.,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri A. A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : 18.08.2021
Shri Madiwale, learned A.G.P. seeks time to file
reply in the matter.
2. Respondent No.2 was duly served but not has filed
any reply in the matter. It appears that reply of
respondent No.2 is necessary. The reason being that the
petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of
the suspension order dated 03.03.2021 on various
grounds. The grounds taken by the petitioner for
challenging the suspension order are in multiple first is
that it has been passed in violation of the direction issued
by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in its judgment in School
Tribunal, Nagpur Appeal No.31 of 2014, rendered on
26.07.2017. Second is that prior approval of the
Education Officer as prescribed in the Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981 (for short the "Rules, 1981") has not been
obtained in this case by the School Management. Third is
that and that subsistence allowance has still not been
paid by the School Management. Fourth is and that there
is an utter failure on the part of the management to
complete the enquiry within 120 days as mandated
under rule 37(2)(f) of the Rules, 1981 and in fact the
School Management has not initiated even any enquiry
so far.
3. Considering these grounds, we find it necessary
that the reply of the respondents must be there on
record.
4. Of course, about the first ground of challenge
pertaining to violation of direction given in paragraph
No.4 of the judgment dated 26.07.2017, made by the
action of the School Management when it issued
suspension order, we are of the view that prima facie
there is no force in this objection as, going by the reasons
stated in the impugned suspension order, one gets an
impression that what is under contemplation against the
petitioner is altogether a new enquiry not related to
charges made against the petitioner in the previous
enquiry in respect of which School Tribunal has given a
liberty to hold the fresh enquiry.
5. We, therefore, grant further time of two weeks to
the respondents to file their respective replies in the
matter and we make ourselves clear that if no reply is
filed by any of these respondents, this Court shall
proceed to decide the case finally on its own merit by
drawing necessary inferences from failure of any of the
respondent to file reply in the matter.
6. Stand over after two weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kirtak
