1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1352 OF 2009 1) Laxman s/o Tolaram Chavan, R/o-Jijau Nagar, Dhoki Road, Kalamb, Tq-Kallam, Dist-Osmanabad, 2) Omprakash s/o Bhagwatrao Barve, R/o-Diksal, Tq-Kallam, Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Latur Division, Latur, 3) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Dist-Osmanabad, 4) Shri. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Karajkalla, Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad, Through its Member, Madhukar s/o Ramrao Pawar, R/o-Karanjkalla, Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad, 2 5) Shri. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Karajkalla, Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad, Through its Joint Secretary/ Secretary. 6) The Head Master, Shri. Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Karajkalla, Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad, 7) Dhananjay s/o Vithalrao Kanse, R/o-Karanjkalla, Tq-Kallamb, Dist-Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.B.S. Shinde Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.A.V. Patil Advocate h/f. Mr. V.D. Gunale Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7. Mr.Prashant Katneshwarkar Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The principal grievance made before us is that the Petitioners have already faced enquiry 3 conducted by Respondent No.5 for the same charges and have been exonerated. Inspite of that the Petitioners have been issued charge-sheet by the Respondent No.4 to face the same charges. 3. The argument appears to be attractive at the first blush, however, on deeper consideration, it would be seen that the grievance is a ruse to stultify the proposed action initiated by the Respondent No.4, which appears to be in conformity with the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Act. The grievance before this Court, however, is that the Respondent No.4 is not the authorized management, whereas the Respondent No.5 continues to be in the management. Reliance is placed on communication issued under the signature of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Osmanabad dated 26th October, 2007, which states that Respondent No.5 was the Joint Secretary as per the P.T.R. Register. 4. The fact remains that the term of the erst- while management expired in the year 2006. The 4 group of trustees of which the Respondent No.4 constitutes part, claim that elections have been held in the year 2006 and the said group has been elected as trustees. In respect of the said election, change report is pending. The fact that the change report is pending, does not mean that the newly elected committee has not assumed the office. The newly elected committee, therefore, would be represented by Respondent No.4, and Respondent No.5 whose term was till 2006 would naturally come to an end. It is not necessary for us to examine the controversy between the Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.5 inter-se. That is a matter which will have to be considered by the Charity Commissioner in the enquiry on the pending change reports. 5. Insofar as the charges against the Petitioners, one of the charge was of molesting two girl students of the school. Insofar as this charge is concerned, in the enquiry conducted by the Respondent No.5, the concerned two students 5 have not been examined at all. No attempt was made to produce them as management witnesses, though material witnesses. Instead, the management examined Kumari Puri Vidya Sanjay, who supported the case of the Petitioners. It is not in dispute that those two girls have already registered police complaint regarding the incident in respect of which the Petitioners are being tried in the departmental action also. 6. Suffice it to observe, that the enquiry conducted by Respondent No.5 in 2008 is obviously without authority since the term of Respondent No. 5 expired in 2006 itself and the Respondent No.4 along with other elected members assumed the office with effect from 2006. In any case, for the reasons already recorded herein above, it appears that the Respondent No.5 has shown indulgence to the Petitioners who conducted the enquiry against them by not examining the material witnesses, namely two girls who complained molestation by the Petitioners herein. Such enquiry was only a farce 6 of enquiry conducted by the Respondent No.5. For that reason also, the Petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of such enquiry conducted by the Respondent No.5. 7. In our opinion, the Petition is devoid of merits. The Petitioners will have to face the enquiry initiated by the Respondent No.4, which is in accord with the provisions of the M.E.P.S. Rules and the same will have to be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. We make it clear that dismissal of this Petition is not expression of opinion either way on the merits of the allegations or charges which are being enquired into in the pending enquiry. Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief is vacated in view of the dismissal of this Petition. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp1352.09