President, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar ... vs Girdhar S/O Anandrao Thaori And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4540 Bom

                                                 1                           48 wp1463.20.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1463 OF 2020
             President, B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha and others
                                    Vs.
                   Girdhar s/o Anandrao Thaori and another
_______________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions               Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
                  Shri M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for
                  petitioners.
                  Shri R.V. Shiralkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.
                  Smt. M.A. Barabde, AGP for respondent no.2.


                                 CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : 11th MARCH, 2021.

Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri R.V. Shiralkar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Smt. M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.2.

(2) By this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur in STC Appeal No.17 of 1999, whereby the Presiding Officer has allowed the appeal by setting aside the termination order dated 30.11.1998. One of the contention that is raised before this Court on behalf of the petitioners is that an opportunity to prove the misconduct was not given to the Management. Admittedly, respondent no.1 who is an Assistant Teacher faced prosecution for committing rape.

                                    2                       48 wp1463.20.odt

         (3)            The learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits

that he is already acquitted in the said prosecution.

(4) In criminal trial the prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. One cannot forget that respondent no.1 was a teacher, who faced very serious charge. After having heard learned counsel for both parties and after perusing the impugned judgment, I am of the opinion that this matter needs admission.

         (5)            Hence, Rule.


         (6)            There shall be stay in terms of prayer clause (b).


         (7)            Shri R.V. Shiralkar, learned counsel waives notice

on behalf of respondent no.1 and Smt. M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent no2. on merit.

JUDGE Wagh