JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J:-Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

The petitioner is in the service of the Anjuman Urdu High School at Nandgaon Peth in the district of Amravati. The school is run by the Anjuman Mufid-Ul-Awam Welfare Society, which is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The school is recognised and is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State. The petitioner was appointed as a Head-Master and his services were approved w.e.f. 1975 by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Amravati, There is a serious dispute inter se amongst the trustees and members and rival groups from amongst the trust have filed respective change reports before the Charity Commissioner under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which are pending. Change Report No. 391/2001 has been filed by the 3rd respondent while Change Report No. 534/2001 has been filed by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, Schedule I in relation to the aforesaid trust recognises inter alia the 3rd respondent as the Secretary of the trust.

2. On 6th May, 2003 an order of suspension was passed against the petitioner by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the order of suspension was signed by the 4th respondent claiming to be the Secretary of the trust and one Sayyed Mohammed Afsar Jani claiming to be the President of the trust. The petitioner has stated that the aforesaid Sayyed Mohammed Afsar Jani is not shown even as an ordinary member of the trust in Schedule 1 or in the records of the Trust. The prior approval of the Education Officer was not taken to the order of suspension as provided in Rule 33(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that from 6th May, 2003, until date he has received neither a show cause nor a notice for an inquiry for a statement of allegations, charge-sheet or notice of any kind. The petitioner had initially instituted a suit before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati in order to challenge the authority of the management to suspend him. That suit has been withdrawn whereupon these proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Civil Court had passed an order dated 23rd June, 2003, making an interim arrangement for the appointment of an acting Head Master. However, it has been stated that the aforesaid in charge Head Master has also been suspended by an order dated 29th October, 2003. It has been stated that Sayyed Mohammed Afsar Jani, posing himself to be the President of the Trust, has appointed one Mr. M.K. Ansari as Head Master, though the services of the petitioner have not been terminated. In the circumstances, the order of suspension has been challenged on the ground that no prior approval was taken to the suspension. In the alternative, it has also been submitted that by and as a result of the provisions contained in Rule 37(2)(f) of the Rules, the order of suspension, in any event, stands revoked since the inquiry has not been completed within a period of 120 days.

4. In the present case affidavits have been filed by the 3rd respondent as well as by the 4th respondent. In so far as 3rd respondent is concerned, he admits that there have been disputes in the trust since 2001. He claims that in accordance with Schedule-I in the Public Trust Record, he still continues to work as Secretary. The 3rd respondent contends that the petitioner is a member of a group led by Sayyed Mohammed and one Shri Patel, by whom the petitioner has been suspended and that he himself has no connection with the order of suspension. The 4th respondent has also filed an affidavit-in-reply. In the additional affidavit that has been filed before the Court on 31st March, 2004, the 4th respondent has alleged that on the very day of the order of suspension, the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document