1 wp11053.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2010 Smt. Sangita W/o Dagaduprasad Jaiswal ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr.V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.A. More, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mrs. S.T. Kazi, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. Advocate Mr. Sapkal has urged violation of principles of natural justice as one of the contention. He states that before passing the impugned order on 06.09.2010, opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner was not aware of the enquiry report allegedly submitted by the Deputy Education Officer and merely because she is found junior than the respondent nos. 5 and 6, there can not be any recovery. 2. Advocates Mr. Patil, Mr. More, Mrs. Kazi as also the learned 2 wp11053.10 A.G.P. for respective respondents support the impugned order. 3. Advocate Mr. Patil has contended that recovery is not only because the petitioner is found junior to the respondent nos. 5 and 6. He states that the petitioner was not qualified and she obtained the B.Ed. qualification only on 23.10.1999. Hence for a period prior to that she could not have been paid as trained graduate. Therefore, recovery has been ordered. He contends that she also produced some forged documents. He is relying upon the observations in the impugned order to demonstrate that some questions were asked to her and she could not answer the same or then she could not produce any documents to substantiate her case. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned order does not mention that an opportunity of hearing was extended either to the petitioner or then to the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The receipt of report of Deputy Education Officer is apparent only because of reference made to it and then the fact evident from that report are mentioned in paragraph nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that it is the Deputy Education Officer who had put some questions to the petitioner. However, question is whether after preparation of report the copy of that 3 wp11053.10 report was made available either to petitioner and then to respondent nos. 5 and 6. 5. It is apparent that the impugned order does not reveal compliance with the principles of natural justice. Hence without going into more merits, same is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 2nd May, 2011. The respondent no.2 shall then make available the copy of the report of the Deputy Education Officer to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 and after obtaining their say shall decide the controversy afresh as early as possible and in any case by 30th June, 2011. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp11053.10