Shankar Gopal Umrani vs Sangli Shikshan Sanstha , Sangli ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10180 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:29162
                                          21-IA13459-2023INRPWST15591-23.DOC

                                                                              Santosh

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13459 OF 2023
                                           IN
                         REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 15591 OF 2023
                                           IN
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 1851 OF 2018

               Shankar Gopal Umrani                                   ...Applicant
                                   Versus
               Sangli Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli & ors.             ...Respondents

               Mr. Satyajeet Rajeshirke, for the Applicant.
               Mr. N. H. Bandiwadekar, Senior Advocate, i/b Ms. Manjiri
                    Parasnis, for the Petitioner.
               Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State/Respondent No.3.

                                                CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.

                                                DATED:       3rd October, 2023

               PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Rajeshirke, the learned Counsel for the

applicant and Mr. Bandiwadekar, the learned Senior Advocate

for the respondent/original petitioner in WP/1851/2018.

2. For the reasons ascribed in the IA/13459/2023 and in

order to advance the cause of substantive justice, the delay in

preferring review petition stands condoned.

3. IA/13459/2023 stands disposed.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicant - review

petitioner - original respondent No.1 submits that when

21-IA13459-2023INRPWST15591-23.DOC

WP/1851/2018 was decided by this Court, it was not brought

to the notice of this Court that respondent No.1 - employee

had already retired on account of superannuation. After the

petition came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 3 rd

April, 2023, the management has initiated enquiry against

respondent No.1 - employee, which is not permissible in law.

It was submitted that the management is banking upon the

observations of this Court in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the

judgment dated 3rd April, 2023, wherein this Court upheld

the consequential directions of the School Tribunal directing

the management to conduct the enquiry from the point it

stood vitiated, reinstate respondent No.1 notionally for the

purpose of conducting enquiry and treat respondent No.1 to

be under suspension and pay the subsistence allowance.

5. It is imperative to note that this Court dismissed

WP/1851/2018 while upholding the order passed by the

learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, which was

assailed in the petition. The aforesaid observations in

paragraphs 26 and 27 were restricted to deciding the legality,

propriety and correctness of the directions issued by the

School Tribunal to hold enquiry from the point it stood

vitiated. The said directions do not imply that this Court has

21-IA13459-2023INRPWST15591-23.DOC

approved the action of the management of conducting

enquiry after the retirement of respondent No.1 - employee.

6. If respondent No.1 - employee, petitioner in the review

petition, is aggrieved by the said course, remedies are open to

him by instituting appropriate proceedings before the

appropriate forum. The observations in paragraphs 26 and

27 will not preclude respondent No.1 - employee from

agitating the said grievance.

7. With the aforesaid clarification, the review petition

stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

Signed by: Santosh S. Kulkarni

Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/10/2023 12:20:01