(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7690 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7754 OF 2010 WRIT PETITION NO. 7690 OF 2010 Vijaysing s/o. Ramchandra Dhage, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Service, Assistant Teacher, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Hatti, Under Central Primary School : Undengaon, Taluka : Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. (2) 5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 6. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sillod. .. Respondents. ....................... WRIT PETITION NO. 7754 OF 2010 Govinda s/o. Sakharam Ingle, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Service, Head Master, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Hatti, Under Central Primary School : Undengaon, Taluka : Sillod, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. (3) 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 5. The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. 6. The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sillod. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Shrikant K. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3 in both petitions. Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 to 6 in both petitions. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Patil, for the petitioners / employees; learned AGP Mr. Tambe, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. Bondar, for respondent nos.4 to 6. (4) 2. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that the matters can be disposed of by short order in view of very narrow scope of controversy involved. 3. Adv. Mr. Patil, for the petitioners, has invited attention to orders dated 28-4-2009 passed by the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, in relation to 7 teachers, to point out that nature of charges levelled against them were somewhat similar and still a lenient view has been taken and only one increment for two years has been withheld without cumulative effect. According to him, when punishment has been imposed upon these two petitioners, this aspect has been lost sight of and they have been brought to minimum of their pay scales thereby wiping out their past ten years service. 4. Learned AGP Mr. Tambe, for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Adv. Mr. Bondar, for respondent nos.4 to 6, have supported the impugned order. They pointed out that such argument of discrimination in the matter of punishment was never raised and both the authorities have concurrently found misconduct established. They have argued that looking to the gravity of misconduct, punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate. (5) 5. Perusal of document filed as Exhibit "K" with Writ Petition No. 7690/2010 reveals that it is an order dated 28-4-2009 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The punishment, as mentioned above, is inflicted on 7 teachers for misconduct of overwriting and erasures in answer sheets, awarding more marks, not deleting names of students constantly remaining absent, for writing answers, for not protecting or preserving the answer sheets and for gross negligence towards work relating to examination. 6. In this situation, whether the misconduct proved against those 7 teachers and against the present petitioners, is identical or not, is the question which also requires consideration, if the argument of Adv. Patil, for the petitioners, about discrimination is to be appreciated. As this contention is being raised for the first time before this Court, I am not inclined to accept it. However, looking to the facts that those 7 teachers are given comparatively mild punishment and petitioners have lost their increments and service of about 10 years, I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioners, to make proper representation to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, in this respect. 7. If such representation is made by the petitioners (6) within a period of six weeks from today, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, shall consider the same in the light of material available on record and pass appropriate orders upon it, as early as possible and in any case, within a further period of six weeks. He may proceed to hear the petitioners, if it is found necessary by him before taking such decision. While taking such decision, he shall not be influenced by the orders earlier passed by him and the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge orders, that would be passed on their proposed representations, if found adverse to their interest. 8. With these observations and directions, present Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7690etc