1 WP No.3991.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3991 OF 2007 Sunil S/o Deoram Bagul, Age 29 years,Occupation Service, Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahasale,Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Director of Education(Secondary) Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Deputy Director of Education Nashik Division,Nashik. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad,Dhule. 5. Shri Swami Samarth Education Society Nagpur(Vardhane) Taluka Sakri,District Dhule, Through its President. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.R.Barlinge, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... 2 WP No.3991.07 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESERVED ON : 30th JUNE, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON : 12th JULY, 2010. JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the respective counsel of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th April, 2007, passed by the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Dhule, withdrawing the approval of the petitioner as “Shikshansevak”. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is fully qualified for being appointed as Assistant teacher having acquired B.A. B.Ed qualification. Thus, he is trained teacher within the meaning of 3 WP No.3991.07 Rule 2(k) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981. The petitioner was appointed as “Shikshan sevak” for a period of three years, after being selected by the Selection Committee from 1st July 2000 to 31st March 2003 in school Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule, run by respondent No.5. His appointed as “Shikshan sevak”was approved by the Education Officer vide his order dated 31st May, 2003. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, his father Devrao Ananda Bagul is President of respondent No.5-Society, in which the petitioner is working as “Shikshansevak”. His father had appointed one Mr. Sunil Chabilal Mahajan as Assistant Teacher by order dated 1st August, 2001. The said Sunil tendered his resignation on 12th August, 2003. After tendering resignation, said Sunil Mahajan made a complaint to the Education Officer on 13th October, 2003 stating therein that the petitioner's father obtained his resignation 4 WP No.3991.07 under duress and committed fraud on him as well as the Government. He further contends that Sunil also submitted his complaint to the Education Officer that the petitioner was working in the two Institutions at the same time i.e. Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule and Pradnya Secondary Vidyalaya, Bardipada, Taluka Sakri District Dhule, which was against Law. He specifically stated in the complaint that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule and Pradnya Secondary Vidyalaya, Bardipada, Taluka Sakri District Dhule, at the same time. 5. On the basis of said complaint filed by Sunil Chabilal Mahajan, the Education Officer issued notice to the petitioner on 1st July 2004 with certain documents. Thereafter, the Education Officer by order dated 23rd August, 2004, cancelled the approval granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 31st May, 2003 and also the 5 WP No.3991.07 approval of salary dated 15th October, 2003. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23rd August, 2004, passed by the Education officer petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 7941 of 2006 in this Court on the ground that the Education Officer passed order without hearing and without following principles of natural justice. He further submitted in the said Writ Petition that the said order was passed on one and the same day, on which show cause notice was issued. In the said Writ Petition, the Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the Education officer and made a statement that the Education Officer will withdraw the said order impugned in that Writ Petition and will pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after following due process. 7. Pursuant to the said order in the said Writ Petition, the Education Officer issued notice dated 26th December, 2006 to the petitioner and directed him to remain present along with record. 6 WP No.3991.07 The Education officer, after recording statement of some of the witnesses has passed the order dated 25th April, 2007 and thereby confirmed his own order dated 23rd August, 2004 and 20th September, 2004. By order dated 23rd August, 2004 the Education Officer had cancelled the approval granted in favour of the petitioner. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Education Officer has referred to the report of the Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) in his impugned order dated 25th April, 2007, however, copy of that report was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. In this way the Education Officer violated the Rules of natural justice. The petitioner submits that factually he worked in Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule, from 1st January, 2000 to 24th August, 2002 without charging any remuneration. The petitioner submits that just to provide his help to the said school he used to take some classes in the interest of 7 WP No.3991.07 students who were studying in that school. Therefore, it can not be said that the petitioner worked for gain in the school at Mhasale. In fact, the petitioner was doing additional duty without getting any remuneration for the same, when he was working with the said school. He further states that it is nobody's case that for the said period the petitioner had drawn wages from two different sources. Therefore, the Education Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that, at that time the petitioner worked in two schools for gain and on that ground withdrawn the approval in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Education officer on 25th April,2007 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Dighe, the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner's father Devram Ananda Bagul is President of respondent No.5-Society, in which the petitioner is also appointed as “Shikshan-sevak”. 8 WP No.3991.07 In the same school the petitioner also held the post of Secretary. The learned A.G.P. states that on the basis of complaint filed by one Mr. Sunil Chabilal Mahajan, the respondent No.4 made inquiry against the petitioner. He sent the copy of the said complaint to the Extension Officer and Deputy Education Officer to make inquiry against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer visited the Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule on 16th April, 2004. Inquiry officer recorded the statements of Assistant Teachers, Head Master, Sarpanch, Police Patil and villagers and complaining Teacher and prepared an inquiry report dated 28th June, 2004. 10. On the basis of the report of respondent No.4, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was working in two schools i.e. Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule and Pradnya Secondary Vidyalaya, Bardipada, Taluka Sakri District Dhule, simultaneously and misappropriated funds of the Government, being 9 WP No.3991.07 Secretary of the same Society, in which the petitioner's father was also President. The petitioner misused his as well as his father's post and got appointment in two schools simultaneously, which is against equity, justice and good conscience. He further submits that against the order of termination dated 25th April, 2007, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nashik Region Nashik, bearing No. 16 of 2004. The said Appeal is pending for hearing and disposal on merits. 11. The learned A.G.P. submits that as per statements of villagers, Police Patil, Sarpanch, the petitioner was not working as Assistant Teacher in the said School i.e. Gurudatta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mhasale, Taluka Sakri, District Dhule. Actually, Mr. Sunil Chabilal Mahajan was working as Science teacher in the said school. The father of the petitioner, Chairman of the said School took resignation of Sunil Chabilal 10 WP No.3991.07 Mahajan under pressure and has included the name of the petitioner in the school register, who was actually not working in the said school. On the basis of all this material available on record the Education officer rightly passed the impugned order dated 25th April, 2007. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Mr. Sunil Chabilal Mahajan, who made a complaint against the petitioner, preferred Civil Application No. 2731 of 2008 for joining him as party-respondent to the present writ Petition. In the said Civil application, he submits that the petitioner, who is son of the President of respondent No.5, has manipulated the record and submitted the written proposal before the Education Officer, instead of applicant and got his service approved. He further submits that the petitioner is employee of Pradnya Madhavik Vidyalaya Bardipada Ta. Sakri, District Dhule. He is permanent Assistant Teacher in the said 11 WP No.3991.07 school. He is also promoted as Head master in the said school, considering his seniority. It is stated in the said Civil Application that considering the facts of the case, the Education Officer rightly passed the impugned order dated 25th April, 2007. He further submits that the petitioner and his family members were accused in Sessions case No. 34 of 2005, in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge Dhule, District Dhule for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A, 304(B), 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code, and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said Sessions Case, the Sessions Court at Dhule passed the judgment dated 11th April, 2008 convicting the petitioner, his father and mother under section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default,to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months. 12 WP No.3991.07 The Sessions Court also convicted petitioner, his father and mother for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further one year. 13. On the basis of these facts and circumstances, Mr. Sunil Chabilal Mahajan submits in Civil Application that the writ Petition be dismissed summarily. 14. We have heard respective counsel appearing for the parties at length. The teaching is one of the noble professions on earth. The teachers are pillars of the civilized society. They educate and mould good character of the citizens. It is worthwhile to quote what the great thinker Lydia H. Sigourney says about the role of teachers: “Teachers should be held in the highest honour. They are the allies of legislators; they have agency in the prevention of crime; they aid in 13 WP No.3991.07 regulating the atmosphere, whose incessant action and pressure cause the life blood to circulate, and to return pure and healthful to the heart of the nation.” Not education, but character is mans greatest need and mans greatest safeguard and character building of the students is expected from the teachers. It is questionable whether the petitioner can fulfill those expectations. The petitioner worked at the same time in two schools which is against the law. Not only that his father brought pressure on Sunil Chabilal Mahajan and obtained his resignation just to appoint the petitioner in his place in the school. When the Education Officer made spot inquiry, it revealed that the petitioner did not work as teacher in the respondent No.5-School and yet he had drawn the salary using the position of his father, who was President of the respondent No.5. At the same time his name was also on the pay roll of another school at Mahasale, which is against the rules and regulations. 14 WP No.3991.07 15. The petitioner made a wrong statement in the present petition that he had not filed any other petition nor initiated any proceeding, in any Court of Law touching the subject matter of this writ petition. Actually, the petitioner filed an Appeal before School Tribunal Nashik Region, Nashik challenging his termination order dated 15th September, 2004 under section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act 1977. Apart from this, the petitioner is convicted by the sessions Court under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for five years rigorous imprisonment. All these facts strongly militate against the claim of the petitioner. 16. Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed with cost. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK