Dismissed

Sina Gramin Vikas Sanstha Ghumari through Its Secretary Sopan Laxman Anbhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Jul 2016WP/4558/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition by a single judge against an order releasing the salary of a respondent. The petitioner felt they should have been able to discipline the individual. The court held that the Education Officer should have looked into the matter, and the salary release order was not an impediment to future legal action.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the order directing the release of salary stands upheld as not being an impediment to valid disciplinary action.

Sina Gramin Vikas Sanstha Ghumari through Its… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

21.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

21 WRIT PETITION NO. 4558 OF 2016

¶4

SINA GRAMIN VIKAS SANSTHA GHUMARI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

¶5

SOPAN LAXMAN ANBHULE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

...

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N. B. Khandwe h/for Mr.
Mr. Deshmukh Mahesh S.

¶10

AGP for Respondents 1 and 3: Mr. V. M.Kangne
Advocate for Respondent No.5 :Mr. Ashwin V. Hon

¶11

CORAM: R. M. BORDE &

¶12

K. L. WADANE, JJ.

¶13

 DATE:
5th July, 2016

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

1.Heardlearned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

2. The petitioner is objecting to the order

¶17

directing release of salary of respondent No.5.
Respondent No.5 is son of the President of the
petitioner Educational Institution and claims that the
petitioner do not have entitlement to take any
disciplinary measure against him.

¶18

3. The Education Institution appears to be a
family affairs of its President and his relatives. It

¶19

would be in fitness of things for the State, Education
Officer and Deputy Director of Education to look into
the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance

¶20

1/2

¶21

21.odt

¶22

with law. So far as disciplinary proceedings against
respondent No.5 is concerned, if the petitioner is
authorized in law, it would be permissible for the
petitioner to take suitable steps and the order passed
by the Deputy Director of Education directing release
of salary of respondent No.5 shall not an
impediment.

¶23

4. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶25

JPC

¶26

2/2

Sina Gramin Vikas Sanstha Ghumari through Its Secretary Sopan Laxman Anbhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sina Gramin Vikas Sanstha Ghumari through Its Secretary Sopan Laxman Anbhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Proposed Laxmidevi Machya Vavyasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Savangi Talav Thru Its Chief Promoter Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Proposed Annabhau Sathe Machya Vavyasaik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its Chief Promoter a a Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pralhad Gopal Falak and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs M/S Shradha Steels, Latur.

Balaji Baliram Bande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sarika Balaji Bande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others