Nitin Ghanshyam Rane vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13816 Bom

                                    1                946 wp-9296-17

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 9296 OF 2017

Nitin s/o Ghanshyam Rane,
Age : 46 years, Occu :- Service (As
Headmaster)
R/o c/o Zilla Parishad Primary School
Aamode, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
                                                       ...Petitioner

                       Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra

2. The Chief Executive Officer,
   Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.

3. The Block Education Officer,
   Panchayat Samitee,
   Yawal, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.                    ...Respondents
                         .......
Mr. Chetan T. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. P.G.Borade, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for                         Respondent
No. 3
                         .......


                        CORAM   :       MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                        DATE    :       24-09-2021.



ORAL JUDGMENT :

01.            Heard.



02.            Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.                      With

the consent of the parties matter is heard finally at the

stage of the admission.

2 946 wp-9296-17

03. The petitioner is impugning the order imposing

punishment on him pursuant to rules of Maharashtra Zilla

Parishad Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 in a

departmental enquiry, by the Chief Executive Officer of

the Zilla Parishad. The petitioner's appeal has been

dismissed by the impugned Judgment and order by the

Divisional Commissioner.

04. After hearing the learned Advocates of both the

sides, it appears that alongwith the petitioner several

other Headmasters of different schools being run by the

Zilla Parishad were inflicted with a similar punishment

for indulging in misappropriation in respect of

implementation of Government scheme for supply of uniforms

to the school students. The basic allegation that is

being levelled against all of them was dereliction to the

Government Resolution dated 04.02.2011 which laid down

several guidelines for implementation of the scheme. The

allegations against various Headmasters are different.

05. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it

appears that it is being alleged that he had in violation

of the Government Resolution got uniforms stitched from a

3 946 wp-9296-17

help group from Aurangabad without exploring the

possibility of getting the uniforms stitched from a local

help group as per the guidelines.

06. It also transpires that pursuant to the show-

cause notice the petitioner had tendered a written

explanation wherein he had specifically mentioned that the

process of placing the order pursuant to the Government

scheme was undertaken by his predecessor who was occupying

the post of Headmaster from 01.07.2009 to 01.02.2012. He

specifically mentioned that he had taken over the charge

as the Headmaster w. e. f. 02.02.2012. He also

specifically mentioned that the cheque issued by his

predecessor was dishonoured and consequently, after a

resolution was passed by the school committee, in order to

clear the dues he simply issued a fresh cheque. It is a

specific stand that he had no role to play as far as

placing of the order, selection of cloth and payment of

money, which process had happened during the tenure of his

predecessor.

07. Perusal of the order passed by the Chief

Executive Officer as also the one passed by the Divisional

Commissioner do not reveal about an enquiry into the stand

4 946 wp-9296-17

being taken by the petitioner was undertaken so as to

ascertain as to if really he was holding the post of

Headmaster when the alleged misdeed had occurred. In

fact, even the impugned orders do not disclose the

specific charges that were being levelled against the

petitioner, the same being vague and omnibus.

08. In view of the above state of affairs, in my

considered view both the orders, one passed by the

disciplinary authority that is Chief Executive Officer and

the one by the appellate authority that is Divisional

Commissioner, are not sustainable in law.

09. Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned

orders are quashed and set aside. If the disciplinary

authority now intends, it may take the disciplinary

proceeding afresh bearing in mind all the observations

made hereinabove.

[MANGESH S. PATIL] JUDGE Dahibhate/-