Partly allowed

Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Raipur through Secretary D.B. Tambole v. Deputy Director of Education and Another

Bombay HC15 Apr 2013WP/443/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order without hearing directing enquiry, cancellation of approval and salary recovery. Bench set aside order, directed hearing and further compliance within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dated 3.1.2013; directed respondent to extend opportunity of hearing to petitioner within six weeks.

Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Raipur through Secretary… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 443 of 2013

¶3

[Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Dy. Director of
Education & another]

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶5

Mr. P.P. Mahalle, Adv., for the petitioner.
Mr. Kankale, AGP for respondents.

¶6

CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 15th April, 2013.

¶8

01. Heard respective counsel. Perused the impugned order.

¶9

02.Its perusal reveals that behind the back
of the petitioner and other connected persons,
a superior authority has directed its
subordinate to hear the affected persons and to
cancel approval given to them. It is further
directed that amount disbursed towards their
salary should be recovered from the management.

¶10

¶11

A further direction to lodge a police complaint
is also issued.

¶12

03.Learned AGP states that after noticing
the irregularities committed by the petitioner,
the impugned order has been passed for ordering
an enquiry, and opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner was not necessary.

¶13

04.We find that the Deputy Director of
Education has not only ordered an ehquiry, but
has also directed a particular course of
action. Hence, a mere clarification by this
Court that the said order shall not influence
the Education Officer may not be sufficient.

¶14

05.We, therefore, direct the respondent no.1
 Deputy Director of Education to extend an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
only for that purpose, we set aside the
impugned order dated 3rd January, 2013.

¶15

06.Petitioner shall appear before respondent
no.1 on 30th April, 2013 and shall abide by
said authority�s further instructions in the
matter. The petitioner shall not take any
adjournments.

¶16

07.Respondent no.1 shall pass further
appropriate orders in the matter in accordance

¶17

¶18

with law within a further period of six weeks.

¶19

08.Petition is, thus, partly allowed and
disposed of. No costs.

¶20

JudgeJudge

¶21

|Hedau|

Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Raipur through Secretary D.B. Tambole v. Deputy Director of Education and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha Raipur through Secretary D.B. Tambole v. Deputy Director of Education and Another

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

Kailash Ramdas Deotalu Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Gajanan S/O Ramchandra Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept.and Others

Narayan Dinbaji Jambhulay Vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay S/O Vasudeorao Agarkar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Ministray of Trasport Mumbai, and Ors.

Yunus Ali S/O Syed Nazir (Thr. Power of Attorney Ahmad Kha Ulfatkha Vs Syed Hamid S/O Syed Nazir and Others

Ballarpur Industries Limited through Authorized Signatory and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Dept. of Forests