1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.280 OF 2010 Parmeshwar s/o Sheshrao Tandle .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.281 OF 2010 Jankiram Govardhan Kurund .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served 2 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.283 OF 2010 Girija Saudagar Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.284 OF 2010 Tirsing s/o Dattu Ware .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served 3 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.285 OF 2010 Damodar Tukaram Tandle .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.286 OF 2010 Vinayak s/o Ramrao Avhad .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.287 OF 2010 Ashok s/o Raosaheb Jagtap .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2010 Shriram Babasaheb Bahir .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served 5 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.289 OF 2010 Kedarnath Chandrakant Chavan ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Respondent No.4 served - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.290 OF 2010 Pandit s/o Uttamrao Gopalghare .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 6 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.291 OF 2010 Baburao Rambhau Chavre .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.292 OF 2010 Rangnath Ganpat Raut .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 7 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2010 Vitthal s/o Maruti Jadhav .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.294 OF 2010 Yeshwant s/o Vasantrao Deshmukh .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 Mr.Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 8 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.295 OF 2010 Narendra s/o Daulatrao Chaudhari .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.4 Respondent No.3 served. - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.296 OF 2010 Santosh s/o Ramkrishna Karankal .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr.N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.4 Respondent No.3 served 9 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.297 OF 2010 Ravindra Kishanlal Zanwar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Respondent No.3 and 4 served - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.282 OF 2010 Santosh s/o Ganpatrao Kharpude .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondents 2 Respondent No.3 and 4 served 10 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.660 OF 2010 Shaikh Sharma s/o Shaikh Chand .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Respondent No.3 and 4 served CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 21st April 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 22nd April 2010 COURT’S ORDER (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Since a common question is raised in these nineteen petitions, we deem it appropriate to decide these petitions together by a common order. In Writ Petition No.294 of 2010 to Writ Petition No.660 of 2010, the petitioners are employees of private school while in the other petitions the petitioners are employees of the Zilla Parishad. 11 2. We refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.280 of 2010 for the purposes of detail. The petitioner in this writ petition is working as an Assistant Teacher in the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Wanjarwadi, Taluka and District Beed since 27th June 1989. According to the petitioner, the petitioner applied for reimbursement claim on account of medical expenses with the reimbursement claim being supported by medical certificate. The District Civil Surgeon, Beed certified the claim by his forwarding letter dated 30.3.2009. The reimbursement claim of the petitioner was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Beed, along with the sanction letter and the certificate of the District Civil Surgeon, Beed. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad Beed verified the reimbursement claim on the basis of sanction letter and the certificate issued by the District Civil Surgeon. Meanwhile, it appears that a private medical practitioner by name Dr.Vishal Hajari lodged a complaint at the Police Station, Shivajinagar, Beed on 19.5.2009 alleging that the petitioner had collected medical bills of the treatment of his father which was submitted by him to the Education Officer. Dr.Hajari lodged a complaint and an offence came to be registered against the petitioner and others for an offence punishable under Section 420, 463, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.80/2009. 3. According to the petitioners, upon registration of an offence against the petitioners, the petitioners came to be suspended by virtue of the impugned orders in the petition. 12 4. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have submitted the affidavit-in-reply and in the affidavit it is pointed out that apart from the suspension of the petitioners on account of registration of an offence, the Zilla Parishad has issued charge-sheet to the petitioners and an Enquiry Officer has been appointed and an enquiry against the petitioners is contemplated. 5. Mr.Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the suspension of the petitioners is unwarranted in the light of the fact that the petitioners have not caused any wrongful loss to the Zilla Parishad, i.e. the employers. It is stated that in some of the cases the petitioners have refunded/repaid the amount of the medical reimbursement. It is stated that excepting the petitioner in Writ Petition No.282 of 2010, either the petitioners have not received the amount of medical reimbursement or they have refunded the amount. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.282 of 2010 has not repaid the aforesaid amount of medical reimbursement received by him. It is further stated that the petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. It is urged before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that apart from the petitioners the other officials, particularly the Civil Surgeon and other officials have not been proceeded against departmentally. In respect of the petitioners who are employees of the private school, it is stated that the necessary rules relating to the power of the management to place the employees under suspension contemplates a subjective satisfaction and 13 a reason to believe that the suspension is necessary for the grounds stated in the said rule. It is stated that the suspension of the petitioners, particularly those petitioners who are employees of private school has been made on account of the dictate of the Education Officer who had directed the placing of the petitioners under suspension. Mr.Bondar, learned Counsel for the respondents has urged before us that the respondents undoubtedly have the power to place the petitioners under suspension and in the light of serious allegations which are made against the petitioners and also in the light of the fact that the petitioners are being proceeded against departmentally, no case for quashing of the suspension is made out. 6. At this juncture we may refer to Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The aforesaid rule deals with the power of placing the Parishad employee under suspension where the disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The provision of the rule to which we have adverted above clearly empowers the authorities to place an employee under suspension on account of an either investigation or trial against an employee for a criminal offence. The fact that the offence has been registered against the petitioners and an investigation thereof is pending, no fault can be found with the exercise of the jurisdiction by the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension. 14 7. Merely because the authorities have not proceeded against some of the employees or the Civil Surgeon or other authorities, cannot be made a foundation for quashing and setting aside the suspension order of the petitioners. Mr.Talekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in E.S.Reddi Vs.Chief Secretary, Government of A.P. and another, (1987) 3 Supreme Court Cases 258. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the petitioners we have perused the observations of the Supreme Court in the relevant paragraphs and upon such perusal we find that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Merely because the Education Officer had directed the placing of the petitioners under suspension, it cannot lead to an inference that the management has mechanically without application of mind directed the placing of the petitioners under suspension. It is obvious that the respondents realising the gravity of the offence which is alleged against the petitioners have chosen to place the petitioners under suspension. All that the Education Officer has directed is the placing of the petitioners under suspension but by itself cannot lead to an inference that without application of mind the petitioners have been placed under suspension. 15 9. Since a departmental enquiry has been proposed against the petitioners and the investigation in respect of the said crime is pending, we refrain from making any observations in respect of the merits of the matter least any observations made by us touching the merits of the matters would prejudice either the investigation or the proposed enquiry against the petitioners. Suffice it to say that we find that there is no legal challenge in respect of the suspension of the petitioners and consequently the petitions being devoid of any merit are summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/280.10wp)