1 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6543 OF 2010 Kashinath S/o Raghunath Chitale Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Assistant Teacher, R/o : Ambika Nagar, Tq. Karjat, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The Dy. Director of Education Pune Division, Pune. 2. The President Shri Ambika Trust, Ambika Nagar, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. The Manager Shri Ambika Trust, Ambika Nagar, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Padmabhushan Vasant Dada Patil Madhyamik Uccha Madhyamik (Arts & Science) Vidyalaya, Ambika Nagar, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. Through its Principal. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] Mr. N.V.Gaware, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.G.Shelke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. C.K.Shinde,Advocate for Respondent No. 2. Mr. D.D.Pokharkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher with the respondent no. 4 – School run by the respondent no. 3 – Karkhana. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar venting his grievance about illegal deduction from his salary. A copy of the said representation was also submitted to the respondent no. 4 – school. Thereafter, again the representation was submitted directly to the authority concerned in the year 2007-2008. For this act, the Principal of respondent no. 4 – School issued memo to the 3 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] petitioner for violation of Rule 24 ( 1 ) of M.E.P.S. ( Conditions of Service ) Rules, 1981 [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ]. The petitioner submitted the reply. Thereafter, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 passed order imposing minor penalty of with-holding increment for the period from 1/6/2008 up to 31/5/2009. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring an Appeal under Rule 29 of said Rules before the respondent no. 1 – Dy. Director of Education, who rejected the Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr. N.V.Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Liquidator had no authority to issue memo. Without any departmental enquiry, such increment could not have been stopped. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Narendra S/o Motiram Bodkhe V/s The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. Reported in 2006 ( 5 ) ALL MR – 183. The learned counsel further contends that even otherwise, a copy of said representation was given to the respondent no. 4 and the advance copy of the representation was submitted to the Education Officer. In such circumstances, the petitioner can not be said to have committed misconduct within the meaning of Sub Rule ( 1 ) of Rule 24 of the said Rules. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the learned 4 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] Single Judge of this Court in a case of Gokuldas Sundarlal Bagdi V/s Presiding Officer & others reported in 2005 ( 2 ) Bom. C.R. - 196 and the Judgment in a case of Shyam Govindrao Kalamkar V/s Presiding Officer & others reported in 2005 ( 2 ) Bom. C.R. - 81. 5. Mr. C.K.Shinde, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Mr. D.D.Pokharkar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 supports the order passed and submit that minor penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, for which there is no requirement of departmental enquiry. A notice has been issued to the petitioner and his explanation has been considered before passing the order. As such, no irregularity has been committed. The petitioner has committed misconduct within the said Rules as the petitioner is required to root any grievance through the head of the institution. Mr. C.K.Shinde, the learned counsel further contends that when the Liquidator is appointed, he assumes the powers of the Committee and he is in charge of the administration. As such, in absence of the Committee, he would be competent to exercise the powers. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 5 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] 7. The factual matrix that the petitioner has made representation directly to the Education Officer and has given a copy of the same to the Head Master is not disputed. The only question that would remain is whether the representation made to the Education Officer directly by way of an advance copy and also submitting a copy of the same to the head of the School, would come within the ambit and purview of misconduct. 8. Rule 24 ( 1 ) of the said Rules will have to be read in toto. Both the parts of sub rule ( 1 ) of Rule 24 of said Rules will have to be read in a manner which would harmonious both the parts. One part can not be read in a manner which would make the other part otiouse and render it to be a useful lumber. By reading both the parts of sub Rule ( 1 ) of Rule 24 of said Rules, it is manifest that an employee does have a right to give advance copy of his representation to the authority. The only rider is the receipt of the representation shall be acknowledged by the head of the institution. In the present case, the same is followed. The receipt is acknowledged by the head of the institution and the advance copy of the representation is given to the authority. More over, the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Shyam Govindrao Kalamkar and Gokuldas Sundarlal Bagdi referred supra, has held that sub Rule ( 1 ) of Rule 24 of said Rules permits employee to forward advance copy of the representation to the authority 6 WP 6543.2010 - [ J ] and the same would not come within the meaning of mischief and misconduct. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed by quashing the impugned order. As such the Writ Petition is allowed on this ground itself. The other arguments advanced need not be considered. 10. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 6543.2010 - [ J ]