Dismissed

Aswini Anilrao Lathkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Feb 2018WP/713/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad rejected a writ petition seeking to quash the grant of charge to the petitioner as an Education Officer and the appointment of an enquiry committee. The court held the Standing Committee has authority to appoint the committee and natural justice was not violated before the appointment as the previous charge mere days prior was lifted by the petitioner herself.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands rejected as relief to quash the charge grant was denied and the enquiry committee appointment was upheld.

Aswini Anilrao Lathkar Vs the State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp713.18

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.713 OF 2018

¶6

Ashwini d/o Anilrao Lathkar
Age-Major, Occu:Education Officer,

¶7

Primary, Aurangabad,
R/o-Tirupati Park, N-4, CIDCO,

¶8

Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶12

 Through its Secretary,
 Gram Vikas Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai,

¶13

2) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, Zilla Parishad Office, Aurangabad,

¶14

3) The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad,

¶15

4) R.B. Wani,
 Block Education Officer,
 Primary, Panchayat Samiti,
 Phulambri, Tq-Phulambri,
 Dist-Aurangabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

 ...
 Mr.Gaurav L. Deshpande Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, Additional G.P. for Respondent
 No.1.
 Ms.U.P. Kale-Wayal Advocate for Respondent
 Nos.2 to 4

¶18

...

¶19

wp713.18

¶20

¶21

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND

¶22

 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶23

 DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2018

¶24

ORDER :

¶25

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

Petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the State and learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4..

¶27

2. This Petition is filed with following
substantive prayers:

¶28

"B) The impugned order dated 15.01.2018
taking the charge granted to the
petitioner of Education Officer Primary
on 16.11.2017 may kindly be quashed and
set aside.

¶29

C) The order dated 16.11.2017 of
appointment of inquiry committee
against the petitioner be declared
null and void and may kindly be quashed

¶30

wp713.18

¶31

¶32

and set aside."

¶33

3.So far order dated 15th January, 2018

¶34

which is impugned in this Petition is concerned,
the same has been worked out and charge of the
Petitioner has been withdrawn. Therefore the said
prayer cannot be acceded to.

¶35

4.So far as relief claimed in prayer
clause C) is concerned, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the Petitioner submits that Mr. Wani who was
appointed as enquiry officer, from whom only

¶37

charge was withdrawn and the same was given to the
Petitioner, and therefore enquiry by such person

¶38

whose charge was withdrawn and given to the
Petitioner, was pre-determined and with grudge in
mind and therefore the same stands vitiated. He
further submits that principles of natural justice
were not followed, in as much as no opportunity
was given to the Petitioner before such enquiry

¶39

was initiated. Learned counsel invites our

¶40

wp713.18

¶41

¶42

attention to various documents and submits that it
is only pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court and directions given by the Director of
Education, the continuation letter was issued in
favour of eleven employees whose services were
discontinued. He further invites our attention to
the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken
therein, annexures thereto and the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Subramanian vs.

¶43

Union of India and others1 and the Judgment in
Civil Appeal No.7600 of 2014 (Allahabad Bank and
others vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari), and submits

¶44

that the appointment of the enquiry committee and
also the enquiry report deserves to be quashed and
set aside.

¶45

5.On the other hand, learned counsel

¶46

appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 invites our
attention to the averments in the reply and also
annexures thereto. She submits that as soon as

¶47

12013 AIR SCW 6277

¶48

wp713.18

¶49

¶50

charge was given to the Petitioner, within couple

¶51

of days, without taking approval from the

¶52

superiors, the Petitioner passed an order on 9th
November, 2017 thereby restoring the services of
eleven employees. She submits that the said
employees were not the petitioners before the High
Court. She further submits that without
ascertaining whether such units for physically
disabled were available or not in the respective

¶53

schools, the order dated 9th November, 2017 was

¶54

passed. She submits that Standing Committee of the
Zilla Parishad taking recourse of Section 109 of

¶55

the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat
Samitis Act, 1961, has appointed the enquiry
committee. The relevant documents were submitted
before the enquiry committee during the course of
enquiry, which was discreet enquiry. The report

¶56

has been submitted to the Chief Executive Officer
of the Zilla Parishad. It is submitted that the

¶57

Chief Executive Officer has submitted his report
to the Commissioner of Education, Pune requesting

¶58

wp713.18

¶59

¶60

for initiating the departmental enquiry against
the Petitioner.

¶61

6.We have considered the submissions of the

¶62

counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
respective Respondents. As already observed,
relief in terms of prayer clause "B)" cannot be
granted. In prayer clause "C)" there is prayer to
set aside the appointment of enquiry committee. In
our opinion, the Standing Committee of the Zilla
Parishad has authority to appoint such enquiry
committee and therefore an appointment of such
enquiry committee cannot be set aside. Moreover
the enquiry committee has enquired into the matter
and discreet enquiry has been complete. It is only

¶63

after the Commissioner of Education or the
Director of Education grants permission to the

¶64

Zilla Parishad to initiate the departmental
enquiry against the Petitioner, notice will be

¶65

issued to the Petitioner. Once such notice is
received, the Petitioner will get opportunity to

¶66

wp713.18

¶67

¶68

defend herself.

¶69

7.Taking overall view of the matter, in our

¶70

opinion, no case is made out to invoke extra
ordinary jurisdiction. The Petition is devoid of
merits. Hence for the reasons stated herein above,

¶71

the Writ Petition stands rejected.

¶72

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶73

asb/FEB18

Aswini Anilrao Lathkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aswini Anilrao Lathkar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Sharadchandra Gatne Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited through Its Chief Area Manager and Another

Meenakshi Ajay Pande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mangesh Madhukar Gaikwad Vs the Union of India and Another

Vithal Gangadhar Putthewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxmi Surgical and Pharma through Its Authorized Representative Y a Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

P Gopinatha Reddy P Chinnathambi Reddy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others