Bombay High Court
Utam Janardan Thorbole vs The Chairman, Shri Sant Chokhoba ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2023:BHC-AS:37375
kishor 1/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9379 OF 2011
Uttam Janardan Thorbole ... Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, Shri Sant Chokhoba
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors. ... Respondents
...
Mr. Shikur G. Kudle, for Petitioner.
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Vinayak Kumbhar, Mr.
Aniket Phapale & Mr. Sagar Mane for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.
...
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 05 DECEMBER 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON : 13 DECEMBER 2023.
P. C.:
. By this petition, Petitioner challenges Judgment and Order
dated 20 July 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Solapur rejecting Appeal No.54 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner
challenging the finding of Inquiry committee as well as penalty of
reduction from the post of Headmaster to the post of Assistant Teacher
vide Order dated 20 October 2010.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner was working
at the relevant time as Headmaster in the Secondary Ashram School run
and managed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is Petitioner's case that there
were 08 teachers in B.Ed category and 06 teachers in D.Ed category in
kishor 2/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
the Ashram School. That despite nonexistence of vacancy in D.Ed
category during the year 2003-04, the management appointed
Chairman's son Shri. Prashant Sale. That there being technical problems
in drawl of salary bills of Shri. Prashant Sale, Chairman was insisting that
the Petitioner must send the salary bill of his son to the education
department. Resistance shown by the Petitioner to accept the request of
the Chairman resulted in development of bias in the mind of Chairman,
who started giving threat to the Petitioner of removal from the post of
Headmaster. Said Shri. Prashant Sale filed Writ Petition before this Court
in which an Order was passed for payment of salary to Shri. Prashant
Sale. According to Petitioner, the said Order was result of misleading on
the part of management. Petitioner alleges that the Chairman started
harassing him with the objective of removing him from the post of
Headmaster. That he was served with a letter dated 11 July 2010 with
regard to alleged complaint filed by villagers of Hunnur against
Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Chairman had ensured that none of the
correspondence addressed to him was delivered him by concerned
postman. That an enquiry was initiated and held behind back of the
Petitioner and that he received report of the enquiry committee vide
letter dated 20 October 2010 as well as Order passed by the management
reverting him from the post of Headmaster to the post of Assistant
Teacher.
3. Petitioner filed Appeal No. 54 of 2010 before School
Tribunal, Solapur challenging the reversion Order dated 20 October
kishor 3/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
2010. In the Appeal, he filed and Application for stay to the reversion
Order which came to be rejected by the School Tribunal. He filed Writ
Petition No. 9288 of 2010 before this Court, which came to be disposed
off observing that there was nothing to interfere with the Order passed by
the Tribunal. The School Tribunal was however directed to decide the
Appeal uninfluenced by the observations in the interim Order. The
management opposed the Appeal by filing reply. After hearing both the
sides, the School Tribunal passed Judgment and Order dated 20 July
2011 dismissing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the
Tribunal's Order dated 20 July 2011, Petitioner has filed the present
petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Kudale, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner. He would submit that the School Tribunal has not appreciated
conspiracy committed by the Chairman and management to somehow
revert Petitioner from the post of Headmaster on account of audacity
shown by him questioning appointment of Chairman's son. That the
entire enquiry has been conducted in accordance with violation of
principles of natural justice by keeping Petitioner in dark about the same.
That he never received any notice of enquiry. That deliberately blank
envelopes were sent to the Petitioner for the purpose of creating evidence
of service of some of the communications, which the Petitioner actually
never received. That despite the fact that names of the members of
enquiry committee were never communicated to Petitioner, School
Tribunal erroneously failed to set aside the penalty of reduction from the
kishor 4/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
post of Headmaster. That none of the charges levelled against Petitioner
held to be proved on the basis of evidence produced in the alleged
enquiry. That the entire enquiry was a farcical exercise since the
Chairman and the management were pre-determined to remove
Petitioner from the post of Headmaster. He would take me through
various findings recorded by the School Tribunal to demonstrate that
there is complete miscarriage of justice, which has been glossed over by
the Tribunal. That the procedure under Rule 36 and 37 of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,
1981 (MEPS Rules) was not followed. He would place reliance on the
Affidavit of Ms. Anjali Patwardhan, awardee teacher stating that her
signature on the report of the enquiry committee is forged and that she
has never acted as a member of the enquiry committee. He submits that
Petitioner has attained age of superannuation on 30 May 2014 and is not
receiving any pension on account of illegal Order passed by the
management.
5. Per Contra Mr. Bandiwadekar the learned senior advocate
appearing for Respondent-Management would oppose the petition and
support the Order passed by the School Tribunal. He would submit that
entire enquiry has been conducted with due adherence to the procedure
prescribed under the Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules. That despite
grant of several opportunities, the Petitioner did not participate in the
enquiry. He did not intimate name of his representative to the enquiry
committee. That the findings of guilt recorded by the enquiry committee
kishor 5/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
are supported by evidence on record. No grounds are raised in petition to
demonstrate that findings of the enquiry committee are perverse. That
the Affidavit of Mrs. Patwardhan cannot be relied upon and the contents
of the affidavit are blatantly false. That she had filed her reply before the
Tribunal justifying the penalty imposed on Petitioner. That the Tribunal
has recorded finding that she appeared before the Tribunal and contented
that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner in the enquiry
which has been conducted in a fair manner.
6. Mr. Bandiwadekar would rely upon Judgment of the Apex
Court in Bank of India Vs. Apurba Kumar Saha , (1994) 2 SCC 615 in
support of his contention that if any employee refuses to participate in
enquiry without any valid reason he cannot complain about violation of
principles of natural justice. He would deny the theory of sending empty
envelopes and would rely upon findings of the School Tribunal rejecting
said contentions.
7. Mr. Bandiwadekar would further submit that after his
reversion on the post of Assistant Teacher, Petitioner failed to attend
duties. Management sent him letters dated 29 November 2010 and 23
December 2010 advising him to resume duties, but by reply dated 01
January 2011, Petitioner took a stand that since the Appeal was directed
to be decided within 3 months, he was not in a position to join the post
of Assistant teacher. That he remained absent for three and half years and
attained age of superannuation on 31 May 2014. That the management
was willing to send his pension proposal on the post of Assistant Teacher,
kishor 6/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
but Petitioner refused to cooperate by signing the necessary pension
forms and insisted that pension proposal must be send on the post of
Headmaster. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.
8. I have heard Mr. Mali, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He would submit that
since Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not concerned with the penalty
imposed on Petitioner, the State Government cannot be saddled with any
liability for payment of any back wages in the event of the impugned
Order being found to be illegal.
9. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
10. Petitioner was working on the post of Headmaster and was
subjected to disciplinary proceedings. It is Management's case that
Statement of Allegations were served on Petitioner vide notice dated 03
June 2010 levelling 13 charges. Petitioner received the notice of 03 June
2010 and submitted his reply on 07 June 2010 denying the charges. The
Management decided to conduct enquiry and constituted enquiry
committee and called upon Petitioner to communicate the name of his
defence nominee vide letter dated 22 July 2010. Petitioner failed to
nominate his nominee and therefore by letter dated 26 August 2010,
Petitioner was communicated decision to proceed with the enquiry
committee with two members of convener and state awardee teacher. A
remainder was issued on 13 August 2010. Petitioner still failed to
kishor 7/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
nominate his defence nominee. One more letter dated 31 August 2010
was issued to Petitioner. First date of enquiry was fixed on 24 August
2010 which was not attended by Petitioner. It is management's case that
despite receipt of several communications as above, Petitioner failed to
attend the enquiry proceedings. The Management has relied upon
various acknowledgments on the part of Petitioner. The enquiry was thus
conducted ex parte. At the end of the enquiry the committee comprising
of two members i.e. Convener and awardee teacher submitted report
dated 16 October 2010 holding Petitioner guilty of misconduct and
recommending penalty of reversion to the post of Assistant Teacher. After
receipt of report of the enquiry committee, Petitioner was served with
Order dated 20 October 2010 imposing the penalty of reversion. He was
supplied report of the inquiry committee along with the penalty order.
11. Perusal of the proceedings of the enquiry would indicate that
Petitioner faced following broad charges :-
(i) Failure to present files relating to grant for the year
2003-04 and 2004-05 resulting in non-receipt of 40% bills
within time.
(ii) Erroneous recording of caste of Assistant Teacher Shri.
Gurudev Kashinath Swami in school records
(iii) Erroneous reflection of pay scale of Shri. Prashant
Pundalik Sale for misleading the state government resulting
in cancellation of sanctioned strength of the school for the
kishor 8/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
year 2007-08 by education department.
(iv) Non disbursal of timely wages of three teachers namely
Shri. Prashant Pundlik Sale, Shri. Jayant Tanaji Sale and Shri.
Sandeep Krishna Pawar.
(v) Erroneous submission of backlog roster on 13 March
2004.
(vi) Filing of complaints by teachers for taking vindictive
actions against them.
(vii) Demanding amounts from Ms. Jayashree Gavali and
abusing her with reference to her caste, leading to filling of
complaint dated 11 August 2005 by her.
(viii) Refusal to follow directions of Management and giving
misleading information to the government authorities
(ix) Failure to produce important documents such as roster,
self-service book, etc to the management
(x) Defamation of management on account of providing
wrong information to Social Welfare Officer.
(xi) Financial misappropriation on account of erroneous
pay fixation of the Petitioner.
(xii) Unauthorized absence from duty from 02 May 2010 to
04 May 2010.
kishor 9/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
12. As observed above, after submitting initial reply dated 27
July 2010 denying the charges, Petitioner has refused to participate in the
enquiry proceedings. The management has relied upon postal
acknowledgments to demonstrate receipt of various communications by
Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that envelopes received by him were empty.
The School Tribunal has refused to accept the said defence. It is
Petitioner's case that no enquiry is actually conducted and the
Management has created farcical show of conduct of enquiry. He has
placed reliance on Affidavit of Smt. Patvardhan, State Awardee Teacher
executed on 18 September 2017. In that affidavit Smt. Patvardhan has
stated that she has not signed the report of the enquiry committee and
her signature thereon is forged. She has further stated that she has never
participated in enquiry against Petitioner. On the other hand, School
Tribunal has referred to Written Statement filed by the Smt. Patvardhan
contending that sufficient opportunities were given to the Petitioner in
the enquiry. I do not have the benefit of the said Written Statement of
Smt. Patwardhan filed before the School Tribunal as none of the parties
have filed the same on record. It is therefore difficult to hold that the
enquiry has not been conducted in a fair or proper manner or that there
is any violation of principles of natural justice.
13. Coming to the aspect of perversity in the findings of the
enquiry committee, perusal of the enquiry committee report dated 16
October 2010 would indicate that the enquiry committee did not
examine any witness for proving charges against Petitioner. The report of
kishor 10/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
the enquiry committee records a finding that Petitioner deliberately did
not participate in the enquiry. The report thereafter proceeds to deal with
each article of charge. It appears that since no witnesses were examined,
the enquiry committee did not have any evidence for discussion. In
absence of any evidence on record, the enquiry committee has proceeded
to hold the charges as proved. The relevant findings of the enquiry
committee with regard to the proof of 11 charges are as under :-
१) दोषारोप क्र.१ च्या बाबतीत श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे माध्यनि क आश्रमशाळा हुन्नुर ता.
मंगळवेढा जिज. सोलापूर येथे मुख्याध्यापक होते त्यां ी या शाळे चे स २००३-०४ चे
अंतितम व २००४-०५ ची नि र्धाा0रीत अ ुदा स्ती वेळेत सादर केल्या े निद.
१५/३/२००५ चे मा.निव.जी.स.क. अ. सोलापूर यांचे पत्रस २००६-०७ चे अंतितम व
००७-०८ अंदाज मुल्यानि र्धाा0ण अहवाल आपण संबंर्धाीत खात्याकडे पाठवीले ला
सल्यामुळे व वरिरष्ठाच्या आदेशाचे पाल करीत सल्यामुळे व आपल्या म मा ी
कारभारामुळे संस्थेस निमळाणारे ४०% परिरपोषण आहार वेळेत निमळाला ाही या बाबत मा.
निवषेश जिजल्हा समाज कल्याण अतिर्धाकारी सोलापूर यां ी १२/१/२००८
,२१/१/२००८,३०/१/२००८ व निवभागीय समजाकल्याण अतिर्धाकारी पुणे तसेच
संस्थेच्या अध्यक्षा ी निद. ३१/१२/२००७ रोजी कळवू ही आपण वरिरष्ठाच्या आदेशाचे
पाल केले ले ाही. या म मा ी कारभारामुळे शाळे तील निवद्यार्थ्याया0चे व संस्थेचे भरु
येणारे ुकसा झाले ले असू यातू श्री.यु.जे थोरबोले यांची कत0 व्यात बुध्दीपरस्पर हयगय
व अक्षमता निदसू येत आहे.श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी
(सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क व २८ (५)ड चा भंग केल्याचे
जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत
आहोत.
२) दोषारोप क्रं. २ च्या बाबतीत श्री. गुरुदेव काशिश ाथ स्वामी यांचे जातीत बदल
दाखवू संबंर्धाीत खात्याकडे चुकीची मानिहती सादर केले ली आहे. सदरचे कृत्य बेकायदेशीर
असू श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF)
नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क व २८ (५)ड चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते.
त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
३) दोषारोप क्रं. ३ च्या बाबतीत माध्यानिमक आश्रमशाळा हुन्नुर ता. मंगळवेढा येथे सह
शिशक्षक श्री. प्रशांत पुडंलीक साळे यां ा मा. निव.जी.स.क.अ. यां ी जा.क्र.२९२०
निद.६/४/२००५ अन्वये वेत श्रेणी ५५००-९००० मध्ये मान्यता निदले ली असतां ा
आपण शौक्षणीक वष0 ०७-०८ मध्ये श्री.साळे यांची सेवक संचात सहशिशक्षक म्हणू वेत
श्रेणी ४५००-७०००/- अशी हेतुपुरस्सर ोंद दाखवू खात्याची निदशाभूल करु सेवक
संच घेतला होता. सदरची बाब संबंर्धाीत खात्याच्या नि दश0 ास आल्यामुळे शास ाची
निदशाभूल केल्यामुळे खात्या े संस्थेच्या वेत ेत्तोर अ ुदा ातू रक्कम रु.१०,०००/- चा
दंडप्रस्तानिपत केले ला आहे व मुख्याद्यापकावर प्रशासकीय काय0 वाही करण्याचे आदेश
निदले ले होते. केवळ श्री. साळे प्रशांत पुंडलीक यां ा जाणीवपुव0क त्रास देण्याच्या वृत्ती े व
kishor 11/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
आर्थिथक क ु सा करण्याच्या एकमेव उद्देशा े खात्याकडे स्वतःच्या अतिर्धाकाराचा गैरवापर
केल्याचे निदसू येत आहे. तरी आपण महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF)
नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे
श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
४) दोषारोप क्रं. ४ बाबतीत माध्यानिमक आश्रमशाळा हुन्नुर येथील कम0 चारी श्री. प्रशांत
पुडलीक साळे , श्री. जयंत ता ाजी साळे , श्री. संनिदप कृष्णा पवार यां ा वैयनि[क मान्यता
शास ाची असतां ाही आपण आर्थिथक कोंडी करण्याच्या एकमेव उद्देशा े त्यांचे पगारनिबले
काढले ाहीत हे निदसू येत आहे. संबंर्धाीत कम0 चाऱ्या े पगारा बाबत व मुख्याध्यापकाच्या
एकातिर्धाकारा बाबत व पैशाची मागणी करीत असल्या बाबत संस्थेकडे ले खी तक्रार केली.
सदर तक्रारीची दखल घेवू संस्थे े संबंर्धाीत कम0 चाऱ्याचे वेत काढणे बाबत
निद.५/६/२००५,१२/६/२००५,२०/६/२००५ व ११/७/२००५ रोजी ले खी कळवू ही
आपण संस्थेचा आदेश मा ले ला ाही हे निदसू येते. आपल्या या कृतीमुळे सदर कम0 चारी
सोलापूर जिजल्हा मागासवगFय शिशक्षक शिशक्षकेतर संघट ेकडे गेले संघट े े
निद.२६/७/२००५ रोजी कळवू ही आपण त्यां ा दाद निदली ाही.आपण दमदाटी केल्याचे
त्यांच्या मानिहती वरु निदसू त्यामुळे शाळे ची बद ामी होवू संस्थेची मा हा ी झाल्याचे
स्पष्ट होते. शेवटी कोणत्याही आदेशाला आपण मान्य करीत ाही म्हणू मा.मुंबई उच्य
न्यायालयात श्री. प्रशांत साळे यां ी र्धााव घेतली. त्या ुसार मा.मुंबई उच्य न्यायालया े
निद.२/२/२०१० रोजी वेत देण्याचे आदेश निदले . या सव0 बावीस मुख्याध्यापक या ात्या े
आपण वैयनि[करिरत्या जबाबदार आहात असे यावरु जिसध्द झाले आहे. श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले
यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील
नि यम २८ (५) अ व २८ (५)क चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे
दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
५) दोषारोप क्रं. ५ च्या बाबतीत आपण निवशेष जिजल्हा समाजकल्याण अतिर्धाकारी
सोलापूर यांचेकडे निद. १३/३/२००४ रोजी शाळे तील शिशक्षकाची अ ष ु ेशची मानिहती
दश0 वीणारा त[ा हा चुकीचा व निदशाभुल करणारा सादर केले ला आहे. प्रशाले मध्ये एक
शिशक्षक एस.सी. असता ा आपण दो शिशक्षक एस.सी. आहेत अशी चुकीची मानिहती देवू
शाळे चे रोस्टर भरु घेतले ले आहे. सदर दोषारोपा बाबत श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र
खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) अ
व २८ (५)क चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे
आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
६) दोषारोप क्रं. ६ चे बाबतीत माध्यानिमक आश्रमशाळा हुन्नुर येथील कम0 चाऱ्यावर
आपण सुडबुध्दी े वागत असल्यामुळे कम0 चाऱ्यां ी निद.२०/१०/१९९७,२४/१०/२०००,
११/८/२००५,२०/३/२००८ रोजी संस्थेकडे व संबंर्धाीत खात्याकडे तक्रारी दाखल
केल्या परंतू आपण कोणतीही दखल अथवा तक्रारीस उत्तर निदले ाही. तसेच हुन्नुर ता.
मंगळवेढा येथील ग्रामस्था ी निद. २०/३/२०१० रोजी आपल्या निवरोर्धाात संस्थेकडे व
संबंर्धाीत खात्याकडे ले खी नि वेद देवू आपणावर कडक कारवाई करावी असा अज0 निदला
या बाबत संस्थे े आपणास ले खीपत्र निदले पण त्याचाही खुलासा केला ाही. या वरु
आपण कोणत्याही आदेशाचे पाल करीत ाही. सदर दोषारोपा बाबत श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले
यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील
नि यम २८ (५) अ चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे . थोरबोले हे दोषी
असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
७) दोषारोप क्रं. ७ चे बाबतीत कु.जयश्री गवळी या जु १९९६ ते जु १९९८ पय`त
आपल्या माध्यानिमक आश्रमशाळे त सहशिशक्षक म्हणू सेवेत होत्या. सध्या त्या श्री. संत
kishor 12/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
रोहीदास प्राथनिमक आश्रमशाळा टेभुणF ता. माढा जिज.सोलापूर येथील मुखध्यापीका आहेत.
त्यां ी काम केले ल्या काळातील सेवक पुस्ताकाची माळी आपणाकडे केली होती त्याच्या
बदल्यात आपण पैशाची मागणी केली . पैसे देण्यास कार निदल्यामुळे अवा0च्या भाषेत
जातीवाचक शिशवीगाळ केल्याची तक्रार संस्थेत दाखल केले ली आहे. तरी आपण सेवेच्या
अटी व शतFचा भंग करु आपण गैरवत0 णूक केल्या े महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी
(सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क व २८ (५)ड चा भंग केल्याचे
जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत
आहोत.
८) दोषारोप क्रं. ८ च्या बाबतीत आश्रम शाळा हुन्नुर ता. मंगळवेढा या शाळे चे ले खा
परिरक्षण अहवाल वेळेत सादर करणे, संस्थेच्या आदेशाचे पाल करणे, शाले य पोषण
आहाराचीमानिहती वेळोवेळी खात्याकडे सादर करणे, मानिहती निवचारणाकेल्यास
अरेरावीची भाषा करणे यामुळे शाळे चे जे क ु सा झाल्यास त्यास आपण वैयनि[क रिरत्या
जबाबदार असल्याचे जिसध्द झाले आहे. महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF)
नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क व २८ (५)ड चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते.
त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
९) दोषारोप क्र. ९ च्या बाबतीत माध्यानिमक आश्रमशाळा हुन्नूर या शाळे तील
कम0 चाऱ्याचे रोस्टर व आपले वैयनि[क सेवा पुस्तक हे संस्थेच्या अतिर्धाकारातील असतां ा
व इतर महत्वाची कागदपत्रे आपण संस्थे े निद. २०/७/२००५ रोजी मागणी करु ही
संस्थेकडे सादर केले ाहीत. संस्थेचे रेकॉड0 स्वतःच्या ताब्यात ठे वले ले आहेत. सदर
दोषारोपा बाबत श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या
शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क,२८ (५) अ, ब व २८ (५) ड चा भंग
केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0
काढीत आहोत.
१०) दोषारोप क्र.१० च्या बाबतीत मा. निव.जी.स.क.अ. यां ा संस्थेच्या कामकाजा
बाबत चुकीची मानिहती पुरवील्यामुळे संस्थेची ाहक बद ामी झाली सदर पत्राचा . खुलासा
वस्तीगृहातील कम0 चाऱ्यां ी निद. ७/२/२००८ रोजी संबंर्धाीत खात्याकडे केले ला आहे.
केवळ संस्थेची बद ामी व्हावी हा आपला एकमेव उद्देश निदसू येत आहे. सदर दोषारोपा
बाबत श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF)
नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) क व २८ (५)ड चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते.
त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
११) दोषारोप क्र.११ च्या बाबतीत मा. निवभागीय समाज कल्याण अतिर्धाकारी, पुणे यां ी
आपल्या गैरवत0 णूकी मुळे स २००८ ची आपली वेत वाढ थांबवली होती. परंतू आपण
संस्थेच्या परस्पर वेत वाढ घेवू वेत नि श्चीती करता ६ व्या वेत आयोगा प्रमाणे निबले
पाठवू खात्याची निदशाभूल करु आर्थिथक फसवणूक केल्याचे संस्थेच्या नि दश0 ास
आल्या तंर संस्थे े निद. १५/३/२०१०,१३/४/२०१० रोजी कळवू ही आपण त्याबाबत
कोणताही खुलासा केले ला ाही. सदर दोषारोपा बाबत श्री.यु.जे. थोरबोले यां ी महाराष्ट्र
खाजगी शाळे तील कम0 चारी (सेवेच्या शतF) नि यमावली १९८१ मर्धाील नि यम २८ (५) ड
चा भंग केल्याचे जिसध्द होते. त्यामुळे श्री.यु.जे.थोरबोले हे दोषी असल्याचे आम्ही दोघे
नि ष्कष0 काढीत आहोत.
kishor 13/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
14. Some of the allegations levelled against the Petitioner were of
serious nature. To illustrate, in charge No.7 Petitioner was accused of
demanding illegal gratification from Ms. Jayashree Gavali and abusing
with reference to her caste in a filthy language. However, it appears that
Ms. Jayashree Gavali is not examined as witness to prove that charge. In
absence of deposition of Ms. Jayshree Gavali, serious charge of demand of
illegal gratification and abusing her with reference to caste is held to be
proved.
15. Similar is the position with regard to charge No. 4 which
levelled allegation of demand of moneys for disbursement of salaries of
Mr. Prashant Pundalik Sale, Shri. Jayant Tanaji Sale and Shri. Sandeep
Krishna Pawar. None of the three teachers are examined as witness in the
enquiry. Without their depositions, serious charge of demand of
gratification in charge No. 4 has been held to be proved by the enquiry
committee. This is how all the 11 charges are held to be proved by the
enquiry committee without any iota of evidence on record. Even if
Petitioner had refused to participate in the enquiry, the Management
ought to have examined the relevant witnesses and recorded their
depositions for proving charges levelled against Petitioner. However, the
Management failed to lead any evidence in the entire enquiry. There is
thus complete absence of evidence on record. The findings of guilt
recorded by the enquiry committee in respect of all the 11 charges are
thus based on 'no evidence' and are therefore perverse. The School
Tribunal has completely ignored the position that there is total absence of
kishor 14/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
evidence on record in support of proof of any of the charges. Findings
recorded by the School Tribunal on point Nos. 4 and 5 in the impugned
Order are totally unsustainable.
16. I therefore find that the findings of guilt recorded by the
enquiry committee against Petitioner are based on no evidence and hence
perverse. The penalty of reduction from the post of Headmaster to the
post of Assistant Teacher imposed vide letter dated 20 October 2010
based on perverse findings of enquiry committee is also unsustainable.
The Tribunal appears to have ignored this glaring fault in the report of
the inquiry committee.
17. The next issue is the nature of relief that can be granted to
Petitioner. This Court has held that the penalty of reversion imposed on
Petitioner is illegal. In ordinary course, for failure to examine witnesses,
the inquiry needs to be remanded for being conducted afresh. However,
much water has flown under the bridge in the interregnum. Petitioner
has already retired from service 9 years ago and would be at an advanced
age now. It is doubtful as to whether the witnesses would be available
now for being examined since period of 13 long years have elapsed since
conduct of inquiry. At the same time, Petitioner cannot be rewarded with
all consequential benefits for the mistake of the inquiry committee in not
examining the witnesses. Since he did not attend inquiry, he would not
have otherwise cross-examined the witnesses. I therefore deem it
appropriate to draw curtains on the entire issue by making an
arrangement that ensures that Petitioner is restored on the post of
kishor 15/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
Headmaster without saddling the management or the State Government
with any liability to pay backwages.
18. Petitioner has failed to attend duties after imposition of
penalty on 20 October 2010 until he attended the age of superannuation
on 31 May 2014. The issue of Petitioner's absence during period form 20
October 2010 to 31 May 2014 was neither involved before the Tribunal
nor is the subject matter of the present petition. Therefore, as a result of
setting aside the penalty imposed on him, Petitioner will have to be
treated as having retired on the post of Headmaster on 31 May 2014.
With a view to prevent any further litigation between the parties, it
would be appropriate to direct that the period from 20 October 2010 to
31 May 2014 shall be treated as duty only for the purpose of qualifying
service for pension and for no other purposes. Petitioner shall not be
entitled to any salary or allowances for the period from 20 October 2010
to 31 May 2014. Since Petitioner is being denied salary and allowances
during the period 20 October 2010 to 31 May 2014, even if any other
person officiated or was appointed or drew salary on the post of
Headmaster, the same would not put any additional burden on the State
Government in the form of paying wages of Headmaster to two persons
for same period. Denial of backwages and not counting the period from
20 October 2010 to 31 May 2014 for any purposes (except as qualifying
service for pension) would also act as some measure of penalty on him.
19. I accordingly proceed to pass the following Order :-
kishor 16/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
i) Judgment and Order dated 20 July 2011 passed by
School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No. 54 of 2010 is set
aside;
ii) The penalty of reversion from the post of Headmaster
to the post of Assistant Teacher imposed on Petitioner vide
Order dated 20 October 2010 is also set aside;
iii) Petitioner shall be treated as having retired on the post
of Headmaster on 31 May 2014 and the Management shall
send a pension proposal of the Petitioner on the post of
Headmaster within a period of 4 weeks from today. On
receipt of such proposal, the competent authority shall take a
decision thereon and sanction the same within a period of 04
weeks from the date of receipt of proposal and pay to the
Petitioner pension and other pensionary benefits with effect
from 01 June 2014. The proposal shall not be rejected on the
ground that another person was appointed or officiated or
drew salary as Headmaster during the period from 20
October 2010 to 31 May 2014;
iv) The period from 20 October 2010 to 31 May 2014
shall not be treated as duty for any purposes except as
qualifying service for pension.
20. With the above directions Writ Petition is partly allowed.
kishor 17/17 wp 9379 of 2011.doc
21. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to
costs.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
KISHOR VISHNU
VISHNU Date:
KAMBLE 2023.12.13
17:18:12
+0530
