Allowed

Shri. Bhagwan Rangnathrao Wanjare v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2016WP/1692/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging transfer of a school employee alleged to have filed a false molestation complaint. The Court set aside the transfer to an unsafe area, directing transfer to Osmanabad, Latur, or Aurangabad within four weeks, clarifying observations are prima facie.

What did the court decide?

Set aside transfer to Gadhchiroli; directed transfer to Osmanabad, Latur, or Aurangabad within four weeks.

Shri. Bhagwan Rangnathrao Wanjare Vs Union of India… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

1/4

(WP 1692 of 2015).

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1692 OF 2015

¶6

Bhagwan R. Wanjare ….Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ….Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for Petitioner Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar for Respondents ******

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JULY 8, 2016

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The grievance of the Petitioner is that after he made a complaint

¶13

against his colleague Shri Singatkar that he had molested his daughter in his house, instead of taking action against the said Singatkar, the Petitioner was transferred to Gadhchiroli. The second grievance of the Petitioner is that no inquiry was held and even if any inquiry was held, the Petitioner was not

¶14

given any opportunity of taking part in that inquiry. He has annexed the proceedings of the inquiry which clearly indicate that neither the Petitioner

¶15

2/4

¶16

(WP 1692 of 2015).

¶17

was present nor any opportunity was given to him to remain present in the said inquiry.

¶18

Mrs. Masurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that a separate inquiry was held, in which he was called and he was asked the questions.

¶19

In our view, such a procedure cannot be adopted by the Respondents and the said procedure is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice. An inquiry has to be held by giving opportunity to both the parties to participate in the same and two separate inquiries cannot be held in such cases, particularly, when the allegations was made by the Petitioners that his daughter was molested. No action was taken against Shri Singatkar only on the ground that the Petitioner's daughter did not belonging to the school in which the Petitioner and Respondent No.1 were employees and she was the student of some other school. This cannot be a ground for exonerating Shri Singatkar. Instead of punishing the said employee, the Petitioner, who was to send to Gadhchiroli. which was an unsafe area and it is well known to the people, who are sent to Gadhchiroli as punishment. Instead of punishing the

¶20

3/4

¶21

(WP 1692 of 2015).

¶22

person against whom such a complaint was filed, the Management and the Committee which was appointed, including the Principal, has proceeded to punish the Petitioner by sending him to Gadhchiroli. The Petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and the CAT had refused to entertain the application filed by the present Petitioner. The reason given by the Tribunal was that the Committee had held an inquiry and had given an opportunity of hearing to both the teachers. This observation is factually incorrect, which is evident from the inquiry proceeding, annexed to this petition.

¶23

We had made a suggestion to Mrs. Masurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner should be transferred to a nearby place. We are informed that the person, who is working in Osmanaabad has completed his five years' tenure and he is likely to be transferred and he has no objection if he transferred to that place or the Petitioner may be transferred to Latur or Aurangabad. At this stage since we do not propose to make any further observations regarding the manner in which the management has acted in this matter. But since they have shown their willingness to accept the orders passed by this Court, we do

¶24

4/4

¶25

(WP 1692 of 2015).

¶26

not wish to prolong the said matter. We, therefore, set aside the transfer of the Petitioner to Gadhchiroli. The Petitioner may transfer to Osmanabad after vacancy arises in the said school or if the vacancies are available at Latur or Aurangabad, he may transfer to there. The entire process will be completed within four weeks. Liberty is given to the Petitioner to apply. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

We clarify that the observations in this order, are only prima facie and restricted to decide the issue of transfer. We may not be taken as having expressed any opinion upon the conduct of either the Petitioner or Shri Singatkar, particularly since we are informed that the allegations and counter allegations are being probed into.

¶28

V.M. KANADE, J.

¶29

M.S. SONAK, J.

Shri. Bhagwan Rangnathrao Wanjare v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhagwan Rangnathrao Wanjare v. Union of India and 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

M/S Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Yashpal Dhanraj Lohi Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary Law and Judiciary Dept. and Anr.

M/S. Parth Exports Vs Citibank N.A. and Ors.

Joseph Anthony Dcunha and 8 Ors. Vs Lydia Agnes Rodrigues and 6 Ors.

Aejaz Ahmed and Anr. Vs Asset Reconstruction Company and Anr.

Mr. Rajkumar Narhari Kadadas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.