Amol S/o Manik Gote & Ors. vs The Deputy Director (Education) & Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission.

By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the

order of the Education Officer, dated 18/05/2017 cancelling the

approval to the appointment of the petitioners on teaching and non-

teaching posts.

Admittedly, there are two factions in the management of

the society and the cases in that regard are pending before the

authorities. Certain complaints were made by one faction of the

management against the appointment of the petitioners on the teaching

and non-teaching posts and also against the approval granted to their

appointments. An enquiry was conducted in the complaints and

according to the enquiry report, the appointments of the petitioners

were not made by following the due process of law. The approval orders

issued in favour of the petitioners by the Education Officer were

cancelled by the impugned order, dated 18/05/2017.

Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that

the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is passed in clear

violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that no show

cause notice was served on the petitioners before cancelling the orders

of their approval. It is stated that not only was the enquiry conducted in

an illegal manner but the enquiry report was also not served on the

petitioners before the impugned order, dated 18/05/2017 was passed.

It is stated that without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the

petitioners and without granting any opportunity to them, whatsoever,

to show cause notice as to why their approval should not be cancelled,

the impugned order was passed.

Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported

the order of the Education Officer. The learned Assistant Government

Pleader submitted that as per the findings in the enquiry report, the

appointment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with law

and approval was wrongfully granted to their appointments though they

were not duly appointed. It is fairly admitted that there is nothing in the

affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 to point out

that the copy of the enquiry report was served on the petitioners and

that the petitioners were served with a notice asking them to show

cause as to why their approval should not be cancelled. It is fairly stated

that it does not appear from the report that a show cause notice was

served on the petitioners before cancellation of their approval and that

the enquiry report was supplied to them.

It is apparent on hearing the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the impugned order suffers from illegality

and the same is liable to be set aside. Since approval was granted to the

appointment of the petitioners, the Education Officer was duty bound to

serve a show cause notice on the petitioners before taking the drastic

step of cancellation of their approval. Not only was a show cause notice

not served on the petitioners before the impugned order was passed but

the copy of the enquiry report was also not served on them. In the

absence of the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioners could not have

effectively defended the show cause notice, even if it had been served

on them. In any case, since no show cause notice was served on the

petitioners and the copy of the enquiry report was not served on them,

the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Education

Officer is free to take action against the petitioners, in accordance with

law.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.