Bombay High Court
Ganesh S/O Kisan Bhujade vs The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati ... on 19 August, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8209
1 WP 3654.23 (J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3654 OF 2023
Ganesh s/o Kisan Bhujade,
Aged about 56 years,
Occupation-Service,
Kutanga, Tahsil-Dharni,
District-Amravati. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division,
Amravati.
2] The Zilla Parishad, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive
Officer, Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
3] The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Camp Area,
Amravati.
4] The Block Development Officer,
Morshi, District-Amravati. .. Respondents
..........
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri P.P. Pendke, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.
Shri M.G. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
None for Respondent No.4 though served.
..........
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2025.
2 WP 3654.23 (J)
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
2. By way of present petition, Petitioner is challenging the
order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Respondent No.2-Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati as well as the order
dated 30.09.2022 passed by Respondent No.1-Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. In nutshell the brief facts of the present matter are as
under :
The petitioner was appointed by Respondent No.2 as a
permanent teacher in Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 12.09.1990.
Considering his merit-cum-seniority, he was promoted as a
Headmaster at Zilla Parishad, Shirkhed, Tahsil-Morshi, District-
Amravati. After taking the charge as a Headmaster, one member
of the School Committee raised grievance that the petitioner is
involved in malpractices in respect of distribution of uniforms,
3 WP 3654.23 (J)
bogus admissions along with other allegations. According to
the petitioner, three members committee was constituted to
investigate the allegations made against the petitioner. In the
said three members committee, it is found that there is no
substance in the allegations raised against the petitioner and
accordingly the petitioner was given clean-chit in the matter.
4. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that after
giving him clean-chit by the Three Members Enquiry
Committee, again the same person lodged complaint to the
Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Amravati on the
same allegations. Accordingly, Block Development Officer has
constituted the enquiry committee to again re-investigate the
allegations levelled against the petitioner. This time, the
Committee found that petitioner is involved in the alleged
irregularity in distribution of uniforms and bogus admissions
etc.
5. In view of the finding of the preliminary enquiry
committee, the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, by his order dated 07.12.2017 suspended the services
of the petitioner. After that, on 06.06.2018, the Block
4 WP 3654.23 (J)
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Morshi issued the
chargesheet to the petitioner. The charges levelled against the
petitioner was dereliction of duty and misappropriation in the
school administration. After issuing the chargesheet, the
enquiry was concluded by appointing the Enquiry Officer and
submitted the report dated 04.07.2019 stating that both the
charges are not proved against the petitioner. Though the
petitioner was exonerated from all the charges, the Respondent
No.2-Zilla Parishad, who is the Disciplinary Authority, imposed
the punishment of withholding of one increment permanently
and further to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as
suspension by order dated 07.07.2020.
6. Against the order of Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad,
Amravati, Petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati. The Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati, while deciding the appeal, by order
dated 26.10.2021 specifically held that in the enquiry
proceeding the chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner by
the authority, who is not the appointing authority of the
petitioner and accordingly entire enquiry proceeding are
5 WP 3654.23 (J)
vitiated. Accordingly, set aside the order of Respondent No.2-
Zilla Parishad dated 07.07.2020, but at the same time, by
exceeding his jurisdiction, directed the Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati to re-consider the issue of imposing the
minor penalty.
7. In view of the order of the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati, the Respondent No.2, by the impugned order,
12.01.2022 imposed the minor punishment of withholding two
increments for temporary period and further the suspension
period of the petitioner was treated as suspension.
8. Against the said order of Respondent No.2-Zilla
Parishad, Amravati, the petitioner again approached to the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati and raised a grievance that
once the enquiry is held to be illegal by him, it was not justified
for the Respondent No.2 to pass such order in the matter.
However, the learned Divisional Commissioner, by the order
dated 30.09.2022, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner
and confirmed the order passed by Respondent No.2 dated
12.01.2022.
6 WP 3654.23 (J)
9. In the background of above said factual position, the
petitioner approached to this Court to set aside both the orders
passed by Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Amravati as well as the Respondent No.1-Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Zilla
Parishad vehemently opposed the petition. It is his contention
that once the Divisional Commissioner by his order dated
26.10.2021 granted liberty to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Amravati to re-consider the issue about imposing
minor punishment, same has been complied with by the
Respondent No.2 and, therefore, there is no illegality in the
order passed by Respondent No.2. He further contended that it
was for the petitioner to challenge the order of Divisional
Commissioner dated 26.10.2021 whereby liberty was granted to
the Zilla Parishad to impose the minor penalty. But he failed to
challenge the same. Hence, on this count, it is stated that the
petition is devoid of merit and same should be dismissed.
11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent
7 WP 3654.23 (J)
No.1/State supported the order passed by Respondent No.1 and
adopted the submission made by Respondent No.2-Zilla
Parishad, Amravati in the matter.
12. After perusal of entire record as well as the provisions
of law, it is clear that once the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati held that enquiry proceeding has been vitiated due to
not issuing the chargesheet by the Appointing Authority,
consequently the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority looses it's significance. Therefore, there was no
reason for the Divisional Commissioner to direct the Chief
Executive Officer to re-consider the issue of imposing of minor
punishment to the petitioner on the basis of same enquiry.
Hence, on this count alone, order of Respondent No.1 dated
26.10.2021 to the extent of directing to Respondent No.2 is
nothing but exceeding his jurisdiction.
13. It is further pertinent to note that the Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati by his order dated 26.10.2021 has
given liberty to the Chief Executive Officer to re-consider,
whether to impose minor punishment or not against the
petitioner. Therefore, in consequence of the same, if the Chief
8 WP 3654.23 (J)
Executive Officer was of the opinion to impose the minor
penalty against the petitioner, he was duty bound to follow of
Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, 'said Rules').
This Rule provides the procedure which is required to be
followed for imposing the minor penalty.
14. Admittedly, in the present petition, the procedure
provided under Rule 7 of the said Rules is not followed in the
matter. Learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad fairly
conceded that no notice was issued to the petitioner before
imposing the minor punishment. Hence, prima facie, the
impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad
dated 12.01.2022 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
15. The Divisional Commissioner, Amravati who was
supposed to consider this material aspect, failed to record any
finding in the impugned order, while dealing with the appeal
filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 12.01.2022.
As such, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati being bad in law, is also liable to be quashed and set
aside.
9 WP 3654.23 (J)
16. From the aforesaid reason, it is clear from the record
that the enquiry proceeding initiated against the petitioner was
in violation of the provisions of law. Furthermore, the minor
penalty imposed against the petitioner is also in violation of
Rule 7 of the said Rules. Consequently, the petitioner has made
out a case for interference of this Court and accordingly
I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 12.01.2022 passed
by Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Amravati as well as the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by
Respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division,
Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is hereby declared that the period of suspension
of the petitioner from 07.12.2017 to 19.07.2018 be treated as
period of continuity of service and accordingly petitioner is
entitled for all consequential benefits arising thereon.
17. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Gulande
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/08/2025 18:46:58
