Petitioner challenged his suspension order under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging violation of Rule 33 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. Court found Rule 33 complied with and dismissed petition.
The writ petition stands dismissed; Respondent No.2 directed to expedite the enquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
910-WP-4706-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4706 OF 2016
Shamsundar Laxman Malvankar Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Petitioner
..Respondents
Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.G.Sawant, AGP for the State.
Coram : SHANTANU KEMKAR & RANJIT MORE, JJ.
Date : 5th May, 2016.
P. C. :
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order of his suspension dated 15.2.2016 by which he has been suspended by the Respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that suspension order is in violation of Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981. We have gone through the impugned order and we find that the order shows that provisions contained in Rule 33 have been complied with.
2 In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. The Petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, we direct Respondent No.2-Management to expedite the enquiry against the Petitioner.
1/2
Shivgan
910-WP-4706-2016.doc
3 All points are kept open.
[RANJIT MORE, J.]
[SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]
2/2
Shivgan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the suspension order under Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 requires interference.
Whether the suspension order violated Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shamsundar Laxman Malvankar
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2
Shantanu Kemkar
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
