Dismissed

Manoj J. Shah, v. Kandivli Education Society and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2010WP/162/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a suspended lecturer seeking quashing of suspension and charge-sheet. The court held that interfering at this stage would not be appropriate and directed the petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing inquiry, while retaining liberty to challenge adverse findings later.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to challenge inquiry findings before appropriate forum.

Manoj J. Shah, Vs Kandivli Education Society and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

MMJ

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.162 OF 2010

Manoj J Shah

..Petitioner

vs.

Kandivali Education Society & Ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. C. Sadashivan i/b Mr. N.M. Ganguli for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. Y.C. Naidu with Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni i/b C.R.Naidu & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶10

Ms. A.N. Helekar AGP for Respondent No.4

¶11

Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.3

¶12

CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 7^th APRIL, 2010

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been suspended and charge-

¶17

sheeted on the similar charges on which he was earlier suspended and consequently dismissed. Therefore, this court should interfere in

¶18

the matter and quash the orders dated 20-2-2009 and 11-5-2009,

¶19

issued by the respondents and direct them to reinstate the petitioner

¶20

to the post of the lecturer with all benefits and pay to him the full emoluments from the date of suspension from service till reinstatement. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as a Lecturer in the respondent-college since the year 1999. It is his further case that the respondent-management wants to harass and get rid of him as he did not accede to their request and he petitioner has been made to suffer for which he had to litigate in the Court and get his grievances redressed. It is submitted that the petitioner had been required to approach the court time and again for getting his rights settled. Therefore, the suspension order and the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the same are perverse and illegal and contrary to the material on record and against the well settled principles of law.

¶21

It is not disputed that the inquiry proceedings have already commenced and the counsel appearing for the petitioner is also engaged as defence assistant in the domestic inquiry.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry officer is biased and he has not permitted the petitioner to freely participate in the inquiry and is also not allowing to cross-examine the witness. Further, it is pointed out that the inquiry proceedings are fixed during the

¶23

office hours which is not possible for the petitioner and his defence assistant, who is his Advocate, to attend. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out to this court that the inquiry proceedings have to be held during the office hours and in case the petitioner makes an application to the inquiry officer that the inquiry proceedings may be held after the office hours to suit the convenience of the petitioner and his defence assistant, there is no reason that the inquiry officer would not allow such request. It is submitted that the petitioner has been delaying the inquiry proceedings for one reason or the other and is not co-operating.

¶24

We have examined the case and, in our view, it will be appropriate

¶25

that the petitioner should co-operate with the respondents and the inquiry officer in enabling them to conclude the inquiry. It will not be appropriate to interfere in the matter at this stage. It is made clear that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the management, he can approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would make an application to the respondent-management within a week

¶26

for fixing the timing of the inquiry after office hours. The inquiry officer should continue to conduct the inquiry on a day-to-day basis

¶27

till it is concluded and that the petitioner would give all co-operation

¶28

for the expeditious conclusion of the inquiry.

¶29

It is further submitted that the respondents should be directed to make all their witnesses available and they should not take unnecessary adjournments in the matter.

¶30

In view of the fact that the parties are directed to go on with the inquiry, we are dismissing this petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the findings / decision of the inquiry officer, if adverse to the petitioner, before the appropriate Forum.

¶31

( J. N. PATEL, J.)

¶32

( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)

Manoj J. Shah, v. Kandivli Education Society and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj J. Shah, v. Kandivli Education Society and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Hadsuv, Chief Promoter of Ekta Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society (Proposed) and Anr. Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 6 Ors.

Madhukar M. Kamble and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Praful D. Mayekar Vs Standard Chartered Bank

Mah.Rajya Mathadi Trans- Port and Gen.Kamgar Union andANR. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.and Ors.

Shrirang R.Suryavanshi Vs Garib Vidyarthi Sahayyak Mandal and Ors.

Arun Sarja Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.