Mohd Iqbal Mohd Gaus vs The President, Parbhani ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2403 Bom

                                                                            wp1024.09
                                       -1-


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 1024 OF 2009
                                     WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12706 OF 2019


 Mohd. Iqbal s/o Mohd. Gaus
 Age 42 years, Occ. Nil,
 R/o. Quarbanali Shah Nagar,
 Dargah Road, Parbhani
 Tq. and District Parbhani                                  ...Petitioner

          versus

 1.       The President,
          Parbhani Education Society
          Dr. Zakir Hussain Nagar,
          Parbhani

 2.       The Secretary,
          Parbhani Education Society
          Dr. Zakir Hussain Nagar,
          Parbhani

 3.       The Head master,
          Dr. Zakir Hussain High School,
          Rajmohalla, Sailu, Tq. Sailu
          District Parbhani

 4.       The Education Officer (Secondary),
          Zilla Parishad, Parbhani
          Tq. and District Parbhani                         ...Respondents

                                     .....
 Mr. M. V. Ghatge, advocate for the petitioner
 Mr. A. B. Tele, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3
 Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent No. 4
                                    .....

                                             CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
                                             DATED : 5th FEBRUARY, 2021

 ORAL JUDGMENT:-


 1.       This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated

 25.8.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,



::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2021 10:59:53 :::
                                                                     wp1024.09
                                   -2-

 Latur in appeal No. 114 of 2006 thereby confirming the order passed

 by the Chief Executive Officer, Parbhani Education Society,

 Parbhani, by which terminating the services of the petitioner.



 2.       I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties for

 some time.



 3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry

 committee has not inquired the charges levelled against the

 petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the reply of the petitioner

 was not considered, nominee of the petitioner was not appointed, not

 any single witness of the petitioner was examined. Learned counsel

 submits that the deposition of the management's witnesses was not

 supplied to the petitioner. Thus, the committee has not followed the

 procedure prescribed under Rules 33 to 37 of the Maharashtra

 Employees of Private School (Condition of Service) Regulation Rules

 1981 and awarded the major punishment to the petitioner under Rule

 29 of the said Rules without taking permission of the Education

 Officer concerned and terminated the services of the petitioner.

 Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his

 submissions places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in

 the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal and Anr vs. Education Officer

 and Anr reported in 2007 AIR (SC) (Supp) 395 and prays for

 passing the order in accordance with the guidelines issued in the

 said order passed by the Supreme Court.

::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2021 10:59:53 :::
                                                                                 wp1024.09
                                              -3-



 4.       Learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and

 learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.4, have not disputed the

 legal position laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya

 Vikas Mandal and Anr (supra). Hence, I proceed to pass the

 following order:-



                                        ORDER

I. Writ petition is hereby partly allowed.

II. In view of the provisions of Rule 36(2) (a) of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private School (Condition of Service)

Regulation Rules 1981, one member from amongst the

members of the Management is to be nominated by the

Management or by the President of the Management if so

authorized by the management, and one member is to be

nominated from amongst the employees of any private school

and the third member to be chosen by the Chief Executive

Officer from the panel of teachers on whom State/National

Award has been conferred.

III. The management of the school is directed to constitute the

committee in accordance with sub-Rules (I) (ii) and (iii) of Rule

36(2) (a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School

wp1024.09

(Condition of Service) Regulation Rules 1981 to go into the

matter afresh.

IV. The petitioner will now be treated under suspension and he

will be entitled to the subsistence allowance as per Rules with

effect from the date of termination of his services.

V. The inquiry shall be completed by the committee within a

period of six months from the date of their nomination/

constitution.

VI. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is

disposed of.

VII. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

6. Civil Application No. 12706 of 2019 is also disposed of.

(V. K. JADHAV, J.)

rlj/