1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3651 OF 2010 (Maharashtra Rajya Shikshak Parishad and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 23, 2011 Heard Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.6, and Shri Malokar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.7. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioners is in respect of inaction on the part of the State Government and its Officers like Director of Education and Deputy Director of Education to take action against respondent no.7, who was Education Officer at Nagpur for about ten years and 2 committed various irregularities and illegalities while performing his duties as Education Officer. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that complaint dated 15/6/2009 was filed by the petitioners before the State Government, Director of Education, etc. However, no steps are taken by the State Government to enquire into the same and, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present petition for necessary directions. Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 5, disputes the above referred contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and submits that cognizance of the complaint of the petitioners was taken by the State Government and necessary steps in this regard are already under-way. It is not disputed that complaint prima facie seems to be extremely serious and detailed enquiry in respect thereof is necessary. It is submitted that State Government forwarded complaint dated 15/6/2009 of the petitioners to the Director of Education, Secondary and Higher Secondary, Pune on 3 23/6/2009 for conducting preliminary enquiry against respondent no.7. The Director of Education has conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted his report to the State Government on 13/12/2010. The said report of the Director of Education is considered by the State Government and it has been decided by the State Government to proceed against the respondent no.7 departmentally. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. Considering the statements made in para (4) of the affidavit dated 24/2/2011 filed by the Deputy Director of Education and in view of facts placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader, it appears that cognizance of the complaint of the petitioners has already been taken by the State Government, preliminary enquiry was also conducted by the Director of Education and decision on the basis thereof to proceed departmentally against respondent no.7 has already been taken by the State Government. In the circumstances, grievance of the petitioners does not appear to be proper. However, having taken decision by the State 4 Government to proceed against respondent no.7 departmentally, we want State Government to take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj