1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1750/1997 Rabhaji Ananda Kulange Age Major, Occ-Nil, R/o Ralegan, Taluka & District-Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) (Matter dismissed for Non-Prosecution against Respondent no.1 only, by Additional Registrar’s order dated 27/7/1998.) 2] The Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri N.B.Suryawanshi,Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.B.Choudhari,Addl.Govt.Pleader for Respondent no.1 Shri S.T.Shelke,Adv.for respondent no.2. 2 CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 12/01/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] : 1] By the present Petition,the petitioner impugned the judgment and order dated 4/8/1995 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal No.3/95, so also the order passed by respondent no.2 the Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, dismissing services of the petitioner as primary teacher by order dated 13/12/1994. 2] The Petition came to be filed on 27/3/1997. Though Rule was issued on 2/5/1997, no interim relief was granted, as prayed, for stay to the operation and execution of the impugned order aforesaid. The Petition was also dismissed on 8/12/2004 for non prosecution. However, the same is restored vide order dated 12/1/2010 in Civil Application Stamp No.20153/2009 and heard finally. 3] Heard both sides. Perused the impugned order dated 4/8/1995 3 passed in Appeal No.3/95 of learned Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. It is arising out of order of dismissal dated 13/12/1994 passed by respondent no.2 Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahemednagar passed in departmental enquiry proceeding No.2/DE-716/1991 ordering suspension served on 25/1/1991 and charge of “moral turpitude”. 4] The petitioner was in the regular employment of the respondent no.2 as a primary teacher since 6/7/1979. The charge sheet was served on him. It indicted the petitioner for a charge of moral turpitude and bigamy. It is alleged that the petitioner married another woman named Manda. Thus, petitioner had cohabitation with both first wife Kusum and second wife Manda, who gave birth to a child on 6/10/1987. Manda committed suicide on 24/3/1991. The petitioner was arrested and prosecuted under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. in Criminal Case No.246/1991 by the Sessions Court. Therefore, departmental enquiry kept pending till its decision. 5] By judgment and order dated 24/4/1994, the Sessions Court was pleased to acquit the petitioner, so he was reinstated in service, however, departmental enquiry continued. After the said judgment, an 4 explanation was called from the petitioner, which he submitted on 2/6/1994. The petitioner refuted the charge of bigamy and further relied on certain observations made by the Sessions Court touching the issue of a second marriage, which was held not proved and urged for his reinstatement. The learned Chief Executive Officer evaluated all relevant evidence, report of inquiry in the light of the explanation given by the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the charge of moral turpitude is proved. Entry of birth of child of Manda was found in municipal record of birth and death and names of petitioner as father and Manda as mother. Deceased Manda was found dead due to burns in the house of the petitioner where both were living as husband and wife jointly with first wife Kusum and her children. This was considered as sufficient material to prove the charge of moral turpitude of petitioner as a teacher who did not deserve in the service any longer. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by respondent no.3, justifying its finding as per Rule 4(7) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1964. 6] It is also admitted that regular Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 5 The appellate authority also scrutinized all material and evidence placed before it and came to the conclusion that petitioner had earlier married with Kusum on 23/5/1979 having 2 daughters, and remarried with Manda for a male child. Appellate authority thus relied on panchanama of scene of offence recorded by the Kopargaon police of her death due to burns, in his house, Ration card of petitioner’s family members revealed name of Manda as his wife, birth certificate of his son born on 6/10/1987 from Manda (deceased) was all considered as reliable evidence against the petitioner by respondent no.2. Thus, learned Additional Commissioner reappreciated the same material and concurred with the findings of the respondent no.2 and dismissed his Appeal. 7] Upon consideration of record and after hearing both the sides, we also find that there is no perversity in the impugned order. The petitioner has availed a regular remedy of Appeal and failed. He was offered opportunity of hearing as per the procedure and principles of natural justice and thus it is found that the order of dismissal and the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner in Appeal did not suffer from any illegality and there is no scope for judicial review by this Court for any interference. No case is made out. Hence Writ 6 Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. [N.D.DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P.DESHPAND,J.] umg/wp1750-97 7 3] The petitioner was appointed as a primary teacher in Zilla Parishad on 6/7/1979 and served under the control of respondent no.2 and it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that his service record was unblemished and without any stigma except the alleged charge of moral turpitude, for which he was suspended by the Education Officer on 24/10/1991, pursuant to a Criminal complaint and he was prosecuted under Section 498-A and 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. On 18/12/1991, a charge sheet was served on him by respondent no.2 on the ground that he performed a second marriage when his first wife was alive and as such committed an act of moral turpitude. He was also charged with the accusation that he and his first wife both illtreated deceased Manda (second wife), who committed suicide and thus the petitioner allegedly abeted the office of suicide, as such criminal case was filed against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to give his explanation within 10 days from the date of notice. The petitioner refuted the charge in the reply saying that he has not committed any offence. The charges levelled against him are false and incorrect and illegal. On the basis of a complaint filed by one 8 Sakhubai Laxman Jadhav, registered as C.R.No.58/91 under Section 498-A and 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. He also denied his marriage with deceased Manda, the alleged second wife. 4] The enquiry officer was appointed in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner on 30/7/1992. It is also revealed in the departmental enquiry report that it was not proved that deceased Manda was the second wife of the petitioner and Sessions Case though committed, was then pending. 5] The petitioner further stated that the Third Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the petitioner of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. by judgment and order dated 19/4/1994 and the said decision was relied by him and he placed reliance on the said judgment and order of acquittal. However, respondent no.2 passed an order dated 13/12/1994 of dismissal of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner during subsistence of first marriage, performed second marriage by garlanding, with another lady and thus committed act of moral turpitude. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. Certain observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in 9 his judgment and order such as deceased Manda was residing with petitioner and the relations between them were like husband and wife, were misled and misinterpreted by respondent no.2, so also , respondent no.2 placed reliance on certain piece of evidence, which was proved according to law to hold him guilty for the charge of moral turpitude. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [A.P.DESHPANDE] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp1750-97