wp1132.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1132 OF 2010 Sau. Meenadevi w/o Vinayakrao Salunkhe .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. R.L. Kute, advocate holding for Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.S. Bagul, advocate for respondent no. 3. ===== CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 23 rd FEBRUARY, 2011 ORAL ORDER : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.) 1 Heard arguments of Mr. R.L. Kute, learned counsel holding for Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.P. Phatke, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Mr. D.S. Bagul, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 2 Petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by wp1132.10 2 respondent no. 3 dated 11-11-2003 directing imposition of penalty of stoppage of one yearly increment with permanent effect. The petitioner was serving as Cluster Head ( Kendra Pramukh) during the relevant period and was entrusted with the responsibilities of supervising the educational activities of the schools falling under her jurisdiction. On 30-12-2002, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to why departmental enquiry shall not be initiated against her in respect of certain shortcomings which were noticed during the visit of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad and the Vice President and the Chairman of the Education Committee, Dhule, to the schools at Avdhan and Laling. Petitioner tendered reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations levelled against her. The Chief Executive Officer, after considering the reply tendered by the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of personal hearing, proceeded to direct imposition of minor penalty of stoppage of one yearly increment with permanent effect. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of imposition of penalty was heard and disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, and the appellate authority, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, was pleased to dismiss the appeal in view of wp1132.10 3 judgment and order dated 20-9-2004. 3 We have perused the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and we are satisfied that both the orders cannot be branded as arbitrary or irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that alongwith the petitioner, the Head Master of the school as well as the Extension Officer ( Education), were also proceeded with similar charges and departmental enquiry was initiated against them. However, they were let off by issuing warning only. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been extended discriminatory treatment in the matter of imposition of punishment. 4 On perusal of the show cause notice as well as the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, it is revealed that the petitioner has been held responsible for her failure to supervise the functions of the subordinates in proper manner. During the inspection conducted by the Chief Executive Officer and the other officials of Zilla Parishad, it was found that although 14 students were found to be absent in the second standard class as per the attendance register for the month of September, 2002, the wp1132.10 4 Head Master, however, in the monthly report for the month of September 2002 has shown attendance of 52 students and has forwarded an incorrect report to the higher officials. The deliberate act of showing incorrect attendance or inflated attendance of the students has bearing on the fixation of strength of teachers in the school. Being the supervising authority, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that the Head Master reports attendance of the students in correct manner so that it would not result in any error in fixing the strength of teaching staff of the school. Apart from the allegations in respect of failure to keep proper supervision, it was also alleged that the registers in respect of distribution of food under the Government scheme were not properly maintained and the record in respect of expenditure incurred under the Sadil and D.P.E.P. schemes were kept by the Head Master at his residence, instead of keeping the same in the school. Similar is the case in respect of maintenance of record relating to meetings of Rural Education Committee and the other related documents. Petitioner has failed to keep control over the functions of Head Master, as a supervisory authority. The charges levelled against petitioner cannot be said to be identical or similar with the charges levelled against the Head Master and Block Education Officer. The claim of the petitioner in respect of wp1132.10 5 failure of observance of parity in the matter of imposition of punishment is therefore, unacceptable. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Man Singh vrs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2008 AIR(SC) 2481. However, as stated above, the charges levelled against petitioner are not comparable with the charges levelled against the Head Master or the Block Education Officer. Argument put forth by the petitioner based on the principle of parity does not need any consideration. Above referred judgment of the Supreme Court on which reliance is place by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 5 It is to be noted that petitioner was charged under Rules 4 and 7 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Service ( Discipline and Appeals ) Rule, 1964. Rule 4 of the said Rules prescribes nature of penalties. According to Rules with-holding of increments or promotion is considered as minor penalty and the procedure for enquiry is prescribed under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Disciplinary authority has observed the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules and proceeded to direct imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with permanent effect. Order passed by the disciplinary authority has also been confirmed by the appellate authority. We do not find any wp1132.10 6 infirmity in the order passed by both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( D.B. BHOSALE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb