Siddiqui Mohd Sharfuddin Mohd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9427 Bom

                                                                 930-wp-6304-2020.odt
                                        (1)

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      930 WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2020
                      WITH CA/3934/2021 IN WP/6304/2020

      SIDDIQUI MOHD SHARFUDDIN MOHD FAIZUDDIN AND OTHERS
                                  VERSUS
              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                      ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ghatge M. V.

AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. M.S. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. R.I. Wakade ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 17th JULY, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. On 28.06.2021, we had called upon the learned advocate for

the petitioner to address us as to whether the chargesheeted employees

are sufciently protected by the 42 nd amendment to the Constitution

(Article 311) in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in

(1993), 4 SCC 727. The view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in an earlier

judgment in Union of India and Ors Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,

reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 needs reference.

2. After briefy hearing the learned advocates for the respective

sides today, it appears that the petitioners contend that there are two

factions in the managing body of the trust. Respondent no.6 contends

that respondent no.4 is not in the managing body and is not elected on the

governing body of the trust. He further adds that these petitioners, who

are chargesheeted employees, have threatened the State Awardee

930-wp-6304-2020.odt

teachers who were appointed in accordance with the M.E.P.S Rules,

1981 on the enquiry committees which were constituted with regard to

petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3. The enquiry committee with regard to petitioner

nos.4, 5 and 6 is yet to be constituted.

3. By the frst order passed by this Court on 27.07.2020, it has

been made clear that the enquiries can proceed against the petitioners.

We, therefore, do not fnd any legal impediment for the constitution of the

enquiry committee even for initiation of the enquiries as against petitioner

nos.4, 5 and 6.

4. We, however, fnd it appropriate to direct the learned

advocate representing respondent no.6 to place before us an afdavit by

the State Awardee teachers that petitioner nos.1 to 3 had threatened such

nominees on the enquiry committee. We also call upon the learned AGP,

who represents respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, to place before us a statement

from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Parbhani as to which is the

authorized governing body on the Kamel Education Society as on date.

5. We are listing this petition on 02.08.2021. The ad-interim

relief granted earlier and our observations in this order would continue

until further orders.

      (S.G. MEHARE. J)                        (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)




 Mujaheed//