Partly allowed

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud v. President Gram Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2010WP/598/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a School Tribunal order directing reinstatement and a de novo inquiry. It upheld the Tribunal's powers under Section 11 to direct a fresh inquiry due to procedural lapses. In another petition, it directed management to wait four weeks before acting on any adverse inquiry decision.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement directed in WP 598/2010; Management prevented from implementing adverse inquiry decision for four weeks in WP 1549/2010.

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud Vs President Gram Vikas… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2010

¶4

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud - PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1) President, Gram Vikas Mandal

¶7

 Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors. - RESPONDENTS

¶8

*****

¶9

Mr.MS Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 3;
Mrs.SD Shelke,AGP for Respondent No.4.

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 1549 OF 2010.

¶12

1) Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon

¶13

Hareshwar, Tq.Pachora, Dist.
Jalgaon, through its President
and others.= PETITIONERS

¶14

 VERSUS

¶15

1) The State of Maharashtra
and others.= RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for petitioners;
Mrs.SD Shelke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3;
Mr.MS Deshmukh, Adv. for Respondent No.4.

¶18

***

¶19

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.

¶20

DATE : 27^th September, 2010.

¶21

PER COURT:

¶22

1)Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in
WP No.598/2010 has tendered a short affidavit on
behalf of Respondent No.1, copy of which is
served on Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for
petitioner. The said short affidavit is taken on
record.

¶23

2)By consent of learned Counsel for the
parties, heard finally.

¶24

3)The order dated 30thOctober, 2009
recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, School
Tribunal, Nasik, thereby terminating services of
the petitioner-librarian in WP No.598/2010 was
set aside and the petitioner was directed to be
reinstated in service with 50% back wages w.e.f.
3rd January, 2008, as subsistence allowance. In
the said order, the School management was allowed
to conduct a domestic inquiry afresh against the
petitioner, to be done within a period of sixty
days. The said order is questioned by the

¶25

¶26

librarian and school management by respective
writ petitions.

¶27

4)Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing
for petitioner – librarian, while putting up his
contention heavily relied upon the provisions of
Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of
PrivateSchools(ConditionsofService)
Regulation Act, 1977, and submits that the arena
of powers vested in the Tribunal is well defined
and the learned Presiding Officer could not
travel in his order to direct a domestic inquiry
against petitioner – librarian. He contended
that the principles of natural justice were not
followed in the domestic inquiry, that has been
found observed by the learned Presiding Officer
and he has rightly quashed the proceedings. He
should have stopped there only.

¶28

5)The grievance of learned Counsel for the
petitioner – Librarian, Sunil Garud cannot be
countenanced in view of specific indication
contemplated in Section 11(2)(f), which reads, -
“to give such other relief to the employee and to
observe such other condition, as it may specify,
having regard to the circumstances of the case. ”

¶29

6)It was in this situation and legal
frame, the learned Presiding Officer was
justified having observed that principles of
natural justice were not followed, no proper

¶30

¶31

opportunity, as petitioner – Sunil expected, was
given and consequently, he directed de novo
inquiry. He allowed liberty to the management to
conduct a domestic inquiry against petitioner –
Sunil. I do not see anything wrong in the order
of learned Presiding Officer. Consequently, Writ
Petition No.598/2010 lacks merit, dismissed.

¶32

7)In Writ Petition No. 1549/2010, the
management feels aggrieved to the directions by
the Presiding Officer to pay 50% of back wages.

¶33

8)Now, Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the management, concedes
to act upon the said order and seeks leave to
withdraw the writ petition.

¶34

9)Consideringthefactsituation,
petitioner - Sunil apprehends that even the
domestic inquiry, which is virtually concluded on
9.9.2010 and pending for further decision, may
turn against him, the management being
prejudicial against him.

¶35

10)The apprehension that has been nursed by
the petitioner – Sunil need not be commented. It
is for the Education Officer to hold an inquiry
within the ambit of the field and authority
conferred to him. However, the principles of
natural justice also invite that the conclusion
of the domestic inquiry should not fall back on
the petitioner – Sunil to face again brunt of
termination of service without affording to

¶36

¶37

prefer an appeal. In the scenario, if any
decision, adverse to the petitioner – Sunil, is
taken by the management in the domestic inquiry,
the same should not be implemented or acted upon
for a period of four weeks from such
communication to the petitioner – Sunil.

¶38

11)It is made clear, the observation about
grant of stay for a period of four weeks, does
not mean that the Presiding Officer of the
Tribunal, too act in such direction while
entertaining proposed appeal of petitioner –
Sunil Bhikanrao Garud.

¶39

12)Both the writ petitions are disposed of
in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

¶40

(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE

¶41

bdv/

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud v. President Gram Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Bhikanrao Garud v. President Gram Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Mukundrao Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Chhagan Shankarrao Kulkarni

Baburao Bappasaheb Kokate and Anr. Vs Bhimrao Limbadas Kadam and Ors.

Bashubee Dilawarkhan. Vs Suyarabee Pyarekhan Died Per Lrs Dilawar Khan Pyare Khan and Others.

Bapurao Dagdu Chavan Alias Gavare and Anr. Vs Shankar Pralhad Chavan Alias Gavare and Anr.

The State Ofl Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Magasvargiya Matsyavyavsay Sah Sanstha Ltd. Garada through Chairman Bhausaheb Traymbak Rathod and an

Chandrakant Vasantrao Deshmukh Vs Saraswatibai Kashinath Patil Deceased and Ors.