{1}

wp4796-12

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4796 OF 2012

Pramod s/o Shantaram Mahajan

PETITIONER

Age – 48 years, Occ – Nil

R/o C/o Pramod A Firke,

“Shree” Prabhat Colony,

Plot No. 14, Bhusawal,

Taluka – Bhusawal,

District - Jalgaon

VERSUS

1.

Shrinath Education Society

RESPONDENTS

Through its President,

Shri Nilkanth Shalikram Zope,

Age – 58 years, Occ – Service

R/o Zopewadi, Varangaon,

Taluka – Bhusawal, District – Jalgaon

2.

Ramesh s/o Raghunath Mahajan,

Principal,

Gangadhar Sandu Chaudhari Secondary

and Higher Secondary School

Varangaon, Taluka – Bhusawal

District – Jalgaon

3.

The Education Officer (Secondary)

Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon

District – Jalgaon

.......

Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. A. V. Hon with Mr. Vinod

Jadhav, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. P. S. Paranjape, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2

Mrs. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for respondent - State

.......

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

{2}

wp4796-12

RESERVED ON : 11

^th JANUARY, 2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 1

^st FEBRUARY, 2022

JUDGMENT:

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2.

This petition challenges judgment and order dated 12^th

April, 2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,

Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal No. 52 of 2010 and the

termination order of the petitioner dated 27^th September, 2010.

3.

Hereinafter the litigating parties are shall be referred as,

the petitioner – teacher; respondent No.1 – management;

respondent No. 2 – school; respondent No.3 – education officer

and the victim girl - student.

Facts in brief are as follows :

4.

The teacher, being qualified for appointment on the post of

assistant teacher, was appointed by the management in the

school, vide order dated 13^th June, 1994.

5.

Second unit test of 9^th standard was being conducted in the

school on 3^rd February, 2010. Science II paper was conducted

between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. at block No.14 and Mr. Borse was

the supervisor. Thereafter, on the same day, second paper of

{3}

wp4796-12

Environmental Science, was being conducted between 4.30 and

5.30 p.m. The student appeared in both the papers. On the next

day i.e. on 4^th February, 2010, the student addressed a

communication to the Head Master making allegation against the

teacher that during the examination on 3^rd February, 2010, the

teacher misbehaved with her.

6.

It is the case of the teacher that the management

approached the Education Officer on 18^th February, 2010 seeking

permission for suspending the teacher. The Education Officer

enquired into the matter, through Deputy Education officer, who

visited the school on 9^th April, 2010 and after recording

statements of the concerned, submitted a report that there is no

substance in the complaint of the student. The Education Officer

accordingly rejected permission to suspend the teacher.

7.

The management on the basis of the complaint of the

student, initiated an inquiry and constituted a committee of

three members. The committee, after conducting inquiry,

submitted a report, holding the teacher guilty of misconduct

involving moral turpitude and code of conduct and recommended

punishment of termination from service. The inquiry report was

placed before the meeting of the Board of Directors of the

management on 26^th September, 2010. The report was accepted

{4}

wp4796-12

by the Board of Directors of the management and by order dated

27^th September, 2010, services of the teacher came to be

terminated.

8.

The teacher challenged the order of termination of his

services before the School Tribunal, Nashik (for short “the

Tribunal”) by filing Appeal No. 52 of 2010. The appeal came to

be dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence the present wr