Partly allowed

Dipak Jagannath Rahane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC3 Jan 2024WP/10699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner, inducted due to fraud, retains his job without termination but forfeits service benefits until absolved. The Court ordered continued salary payment, allowed ongoing investigations, and directed removal of office objections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's services not terminated; to be paid salary; service benefits denied until absolved; investigate unhindered; objections removed in 4 weeks.

Dipak Jagannath Rahane Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

905-WP-10699-2023.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10699 OF 2023 DIPAK JAGANNATH RAHANE VERSUS

¶4

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5
Mr. A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶6

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶7

DATE:03.01.2024

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

1.The Petitioner’s name figures in the TET 2019
examination scam. He has been permanently debarred from
appearing for further TET examination. He is in service.

¶10

2.In several matters at the Principal Seat, at Aurangabad
and at Nagpur, this Court has protected such candidates, who are
in employment. It is, however, ordered that no further service
benefits would be available to such candidates until they are
absolved of the charge. So also, the departmental enquiry/
criminal investigation is permitted to proceed unhindered.

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

(( 2 ))905-WP-10699-2023

¶13

3.In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondents,
returnable on 12.02.2024. The learned AGP waives service of notice
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 5. Shri Nikam, the learned
Advocate, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.2.

¶14

4.Considering the observations in paragraph 2 above, the
same conditions shall apply to the present Petitioner and Respondent
Nos. 6 and 7 shall not terminate the services of the Petitioner. If the
Petitioner is without salary, as there is no approval on account of lack
of TET, the Management will have to pay the salary to the Petitioner
in terms of the appointment order.

¶15

5.All office objections to be removed within four weeks,
failing which, this petition would stand dismissed without further
reference to the Court.

¶16

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]

¶17

SMS

¶18

 2 of 2

Dipak Jagannath Rahane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Jagannath Rahane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasrao Uttamrao Hambarde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shaikh Haseeb Abdul Habeeb and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Surayakant Bandappa Kasnale Vs the Competent Authority the Deputy Collector and Others

Poonam Sudamrao Mugal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Poonam Sudamrao Mugal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Shakeel Shaikh Budhen Vs Mohd Rauf Mohd Zahur and Others