Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar Shriram Gavhane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:27876-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
914 WRIT PETITION NO. 898 OF 2022
VIJAYKUMAR SHRIRAM GAVHANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
.....
Mr. S. K. Mathpati, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Addl. GP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 4th OCTOBER, 2025
P.C. :-
1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of
admission.
2. This Petition takes exception to the orders dated
05/05/2016, whereby the Petitioner was punished by withholding of two
increments temporarily and order dated 23/06/2017, whereby his
request for treating the period of suspension of duty is rejected.
3. The facts which led to the filing of this Petition can be
narrated in brief as under:-
(i) The Petitioner is appointed as Assistant Teacher in Zilla
Parishad Primary School, Zari (BK), Tq. Chakur, District Latur. He came
to be transferred to Zilla Parishad Priimary School, Hanumant Jawalga
and Masnerwadi. He was thereafter promoted as Trained Graduate
914 WP 898.2022.odt 1 of 8
Teacher and further came to be transferred. The Petitioner claimed that
he has rendered 16 years unblemished service as a primary teacher. It
is further case that his parents have political background and contested
the election of Grampanchayat. It is alleged by the Petitioner that out of
the political rivalry, false complaint came to be made against him. It
was alleged in the said complaint about the grievance made by the girls
in the school against the Petitioner. It is his case that said complaint
since was false, was withdrawn on the next day of its filing. It is his
submission that in spite of the said fact, the Petitioner was suspended
by order dated 16/07/2015. Thereafter, charge-sheet came to be issued
against him making allegations in respect of three charges including the
complaint which was withdrawn earlier. This charge-sheet was
responded by the Petitioner by reply dated 27/01/2016. Without
conducting any inquiry, minor penalty came to be imposed upon the
Petitioner withholding two increments temporarily by order dated
05/05/2016. Later on Application was moved by the Petitioner for
treating his period of suspension as on duty. By order dated
23/06/2017, this Application came to be rejected and he was asked to
apply for leave. These orders were challenged unsuccessfully in Appeal,
hence, this Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the facts on
the record clearly indicates there is reason to believe that a false
914 WP 898.2022.odt 2 of 8
complaint was lodged against the Petitioner and on 26/06/2015
however, the same was withdrawn on the next day i.e. on 27/06/2015.
It is his submission that once the said complaint was withdrawn, there
remain no reason for the Management to suspend him from
16/07/2015. It is his submission that even if it is accepted that minor
penalty is imposed, such penalty cannot be imposed unless the Rule 7
of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1964 (for short 'Rules of 1964') is complied with. To support his
submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in case of Dewanand s/o Shankarrao Phulware Versus The
State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 15783/2023. It is
further argued that once it is held that the charge in respect of the
allegations made by the girls students was false, there remain no
justification for suspension of the Petitioner and as such the Petitioner
needs to be treated on duty during the relevant period.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad
sought to support the impugned orders. It is his submission by referring
to the relevant rules that for the purpose of imposing minor penalty, the
procedure as contemplated by Rule 6 is not required to be followed. It is
his further submission that the show cause notice and charge-sheet was
issued to the Petitioner and after considering his explanation/reply order
impugned came to be passed withholding two increments temporarily
914 WP 898.2022.odt 3 of 8
which amounts to minor penalty. It is submitted that the Petitioner has
admitted the charge No.3 and as such there is no reason or justification
to cause interference in the said order. It is argued that since serious
allegations were made against the Petitioner and news was flashed in
the newspaper in this regard and hence, it was necessary for the
Management to suspend the Petitioner. It is his submission that even if
one of the charge is said to be proved and punishment is imposed
against the Petitioner, there would be no justification to treat the period
of suspension as on duty.
6. In order to appreciate the submission sought to be made
across the bar it would be relevant to take note of certain admitted
facts which are appearing from the record. The Petitioner was working
as Teacher in Zilla Parishad School and has rendered 16 years from
service. Admittedly, prior to the incident in question, there was no other
complaint against the Petitioner and his record was unblemished. The
documents filed on record indicate that on 26/06/2015, a complaint was
lodged making allegations against the Petitioner in respect of the
grievance made by the girls students in the school. Perusal of the said
complaint indicates that thought he complaint is said to have been filed
by the parents of the girls as well as the villagers, it does not bear
signature of any one. Pertinently, on the next day i.e. 27/06/2015,
complaint came to be withdrawn with specific statement that there is no
914 WP 898.2022.odt 4 of 8
substance in the said complaint and that nothing can be attributed
against the Petitioner. Not only at relevant time but even before this
Court the Zilla Parishad does not claim that there was any substance in
the complaint made against the Petitioner. Had it been not so, there
would be no justification for the Zilla Parishad not to conduct an inquiry
against the Petitioner and to impose major penalty against him if the
charge was proved. The fact of non conducting of the inquiry by the
Zilla Parishad itself indicates that even the Management of the Zilla
Parishad and the School was convinced at all time about falsity of
complaint in question.
7. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates three charges, first in
respect of the alleged grievance of the girls students, the second is
about the publication of the news in this regard and thereby the school
being defamed. As far as these two charges are concerned, admittedly,
there is no substance in the first charge and as such no action was
taken against the Petitioner. In so far publication of news is concerned,
it it impossible to hold that any person would publish news to defame
himself in public. Thus, the Petitioner cannot be said to be held
responsible for the publication of the said news. On the contrary this
supports the case of the Petitioner that owing to the political rivalry,
Petitioner was sought to be involved in a false complaint.
8. Now remains the third charge against him of negligence in
914 WP 898.2022.odt 5 of 8
the duty. In this regard specific response is given by the Petitioner
stating that inadvertently the year remained to have been mentioned in
the record. He sought apology for the same. With regard to the
presence of the Petitioner in a conference, he specifically states that he
attended the same, however, due to inadvertence, the signature of the
head was not obtained.
9. Now question arises as to whether this admitted fact on the
part of the Petitioner could be considered as misconduct which would
attract the punishment even of withholding of two increments
temporarily. Perusal of the allegations so also the admission of the
Petitioner indicates that inadvertently the year was left to have been
mentioned in record. There is nothing to indicate that the contention of
the Petitioner of attending the said conference is false. In this regard it
is pertinent to take note of the order impugned, wherein the Chief
Executive Officer does not deal with the response/explanation of the
Petitioner in any manner and simply makes a statement as the
explanation is not acceptable. Perusal of the Rule 7 indicates that even
for the purpose of imposing minor penalty the reply of the employee
needs to be considered and reply is found unsatisfactorily, by recording
reasons therefor even minor penalty could be imposed. Perusal of the
impugned order does not indicate so.
914 WP 898.2022.odt 6 of 8
10. Though ordinarily in case of the failure on the part of the
Disciplinary Authority to record reason, the appropriate course to adopt
would be to relegate the matter back to Disciplinary Authority for taking
decision afresh. In the instant case, however, the allegations against the
Petitioner is of year 2016, the present Petition is of year 2022. Prima
facie this Court has found substance in the contention of the Petitioner
that this could be a case of false involvement of the Petitioner owing to
the political rivalry, this Court finds no reason to relegate the matter
back to the Disciplinary Authority for taking decision afresh instead
imposition of penalty of censure would be adequate punishment. Hence,
the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer stands modified. The
Petitioner is punished with the minor penalty of censure and same be
recoded in the service book of the Petitioner.
11. In so far as, the claim of the Petitioner of suspension of
period from 16/07/2015 to 05/05/2016 to be treated as on duty is
concerned, when admittedly there was no substance found in the
complaint against the Petitioner in respect of the girls students and
hence no inquiry was made in respect of the same. Thus, the only
allegation remains against him is in respect of the inadvertent act on his
part of not taking entry in the record. For that reason, there could be no
justification for his suspension. In such circumstances, his
representation dated 27/10/2016 ought to have been accepted by the
914 WP 898.2022.odt 7 of 8
Authorities. As a consequence thereof, the order dated 23/06/2017 is
set aside. The period of suspension from 16/07/2015 to 05/05/2016 be
treated as on duty. The Petitioner would be entitled for all monetary
benefits arising out of setting aside of these orders impugned.
12. Petition is allowed in afore stated terms.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp
914 WP 898.2022.odt 8 of 8
