Allowed

The President Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Neknoor Dist Beed and Ors. v. Sukhdeo Namdeo Zirpe and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2014WP/3448/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a reinstatement order. The court set aside the impugned order as it was passed over 16 months after the final hearing without reasons, holding such delay denied principles of natural justice and restored the matter for final decision.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 25.01.2011; restored the appeal; directed the appellate authority to hear parties and decide by 12.09.2014.

The President Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Neknoor… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P. No.3448/11

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3448 OF 2011

¶5

1.	The President, Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Neknoor, Tal. & Dist. Beed
2.	The Secretary, Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Neknoor, Tal. & Dist. Beed
3.	The Head Master, Adarsha Matimand Nivasi Vidyalaya, Gadhi, Tal. Georai, Dist. Beed	..PETITIONERS (Orig. Resp. Nos. 1 to 3)
	VERSUS
1.	Sukhdeo s/o Namdeo Zirpe, Age 40 years, Occ. Nil, R/o Georai, Tal. Georai, District Beed	(Orig. Appellant)
2.	The District Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad	(Orig. Resp. No.4)
3.	The Divisional Social Welfare Officer,
	Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad	..RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioners; Mr B.B. Bhise, Advocate holding for Mr D.J. Choudhary, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 & 3

¶7

W.P. No.3448/11

¶8

(2)

¶9

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 22nd July, 2014

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

¶13

By the present writ petition, the petitioners - management challenge the order dated 25th January, 2011, passed by Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.2 of 2006, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.1 was allowed and petitioners were directed to reinstate and confirm him in service w.e.f. 27th December, 2005. It was further directed that since petitioner - management was run on no-grant basis, it would be the responsibility of the management to make payment of salary and allowances to respondent no.1 from the date of his appointment.

¶14

Respondent no.1 to the present petition claims to have been appointed as Hostel Superintendent in 2004 at petitioner no.3 school run for mentally challenged children at Gadhi. He submits that in view of the defaults committed at the behest of respondent no.1, a show cause notice

¶15

W.P. No.3448/11

¶16

(3)

¶17

was served on him and he was placed under suspension.

¶18

Subsequent thereto, respondent no.1 tendered his resignation, which prompted him to prefer an appeal. In the appeal, respondent no.1 styled the case of oral termination, which was accepted by the appellate authority with directions to the petitioners to reinstate him with continuity of service from 27th December, 2005.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 25th January, 2011, passed in Appeal No.2 of 2006 at the behest of respondent no.1 is not sustainable in law, in view of the fact that the last date of hearing reflected in the impugned order is 22nd September, 2009 and the order impugned in the appeal is dated 25th January, 2011, i.e. almost after a period of sixteen months.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid conduct on the part of the respondent - appellate authority amounts to denial of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Savitri Chandrakesh Pal vs. State of Mah. & ors ., reported in 2010 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 482. Learned Counsel submits that in paragraph 17 of the said judgment, this Court has given guidelines to the quasi judicial authorities, like the one which has passed the impugned order in the present matter, as to the manner and

¶21

(4)

¶22

W.P. No.3448/11

¶23

mode in which the proceedings before it are required to be conducted. He submits that the impugned order is contrary to the said observations and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel also raises certain issues on merits of the matter.

¶24

While countering the above submissions, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has invited attention of this Court to the number of notices issued by the appellate authority to the parties since 6th June, 2006 till 22nd September, 2009. He submits that enough opportunity was offered to the parties and the appellate authority has rightly reached to a conclusion of granting relief to respondent no.1.

¶25

Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners have come out with false case of resignation against him.

¶26

Having considered rival contentions of the parties, from the record it reflects that the last hearing in the matter before the appellate authority took place on 22nd September, 2009 and the order impugned is passed on 25th January, 2011, i.e. almost after a period of sixteen months.

¶27

No reasons are furnished by the appellate authority in the

¶28

(5) W.P. No.3448/11

¶29

impugned order as to why there was inordinate delay in passing the same.

¶30

It is well settled law that delay in passing an order after conclusion of hearing of the proceedings amounts to denial of principles of natural justice. I am supported in my view in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Savitri (cited supra).

¶31

In the light of above, writ petition is allowed.

¶32

The order dated 25th January, 2011, passed by Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in Appeal No.2 of 2006, is quashed and set aside.

¶33

The appeal is restored to the file of the appellate authority.

¶34

The parties to the petition agree that they shall appear before the appellate authority on 14th August, 2014 with written notes of arguments, if any.

¶35

It is expected of the appellate authority to hear the parties to the appeal and take final decision in the matter, in any case, by 12th September, 2014.

¶36

(6) W.P. No.3448/11

¶37

Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule made absolute

¶38

accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶39

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶40

amj

The President Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Neknoor Dist Beed and Ors. v. Sukhdeo Namdeo Zirpe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The President Hari Om Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Neknoor Dist Beed and Ors. v. Sukhdeo Namdeo Zirpe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Social and Cultural Association at Kusumba and Another Vs Chandrakant Mahadu Chaudhari

Syed Hidayat Sayed Lal Jagirdar Vs Manjoorkha Iqbalkha Jamadar and Others

Usman Baig Hussain Baig and Others Vs Shaikh Nizam Shaikh Jainoddin and Another

Syed Abdul Rafiquoddin Syed Rahimoddin Vs Mohd. Abdul Shaikh Ahmad

Pravin Kundlik Narwade Vs Eshwarsing Fakirsing Tatu

Ramdas Dada Mane Vs Kamalbai Kisan Mane