AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,,
Bharati H. Dangre,J",,,,
1 The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner, initially seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the",,,,
suspension order issued by the respondent no.1 on 14th June 2011. However, subsequently the petition came to be substantively amended seeking",,,,
an appropriate writ/direction to declare that the petitioner has retired from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 28th February 2018 and,,,,
further seeking a direction to confer the pensionary benefits on him and to clear all his retirement dues.,,,,
The said writ petition which was filed by the petitioner on 7th February 2012 came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th June,,,,
2013 at the stage of admission. By the said order, the respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to ensure that the respondent no.1 and 2 pay to the",,,,
petitioner the subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules, if necessary by deducting the same from the nonÂsalary grant issued to the",,,,
respondent nos.1 and 2.,,,,
On disposal of the said writ petition, Notice of Motion No.223 of 2013 was carried out by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in which it was alleged that while",,,,
disposing of the writ petition on 19th June 2013, the Court noted that respondent nos.1 and 2 were in receipt of the Court notice, and though the",,,,
affidavit was filed on behalf of the original petitioner that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were served, the respondents were never served with the notice",,,,
of proceedings. In the peculiar facts placed on record by the affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion, the Notice of Motion came to be",,,,
allowed by this Court by an order dated 14th December 2017. In the result, writ petition no.469/12 was restored to file, by the said order. The",,,,
petitioner sought amendment to the writ petition in view of the intervening developments in the matter and this Court, by an order dated 27th February",,,,
2018, granted liberty to amend the petition and opportunity was also granted to the respondents to file additional affidavit. The writ petition was",,,,
listed before us and by consent of the parties, we have taken it up for final disposal.",,,,
2 The petitioner, claims to have acquired B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi after obtaining a B.Sc and M.Sc degree",,,,
from Gorakhpur University. On the basis of the said educational qualifications, he came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognized school",,,,
run by respondent no.1 with effect from 13th June 1995. According to the petitioner, he has been issued with a certificate by the Head Master of",,,,
the respondent no.2 school which he has placed on record as AnnexureÂA to the petition, thereby certifying that the petitioner is working as Assistant",,,,
Teacher in Nutan Vidya Mandir High School since 13th June 1995. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent employee of respondent no.2",,,,
school and has rendered 16 years of continuous service and was entitled for conferment of senior scale, and salary as per recommendation of 5th Pay",,,,
and 6th Pay Commission.  According to the petitioner, approval was granted to his appointment with effect from 1st May 2000 and the petitioner",,,,
has placed on record the said approval order passed by the Education Inspector, Brihan Mumbai dated 17th July 2000.",,,,
It is the case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, that he was served an order of suspension on 14th February 2011 by the respondent no.2 in",,,,
which it was alleged that he had cheated the management. The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 14th June 2011 issued by the,,,,
Secretary of the respondent no.1 and in the said communication, reference is made to a letter of Education Inspector, West Zone, Brihan Mumbai",,,,
dated 13th June 2011. As per the contentions raised in the petition, the respondent no.2 even filed an FIR at Kurar Police Station, invoking and",,,,
applying alleging offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner.  Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the",,,,
petitioner came to be arrested and was released on bail on 3rd November 2011. In the said offence, the petitioner was chargeÂsheeted and the",,,,
criminal case is pending for trial in the Court of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.,,,,
3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in not permitting him to discharge his duty and non-payment of subsistence,,,,
allowance from the date of suspension approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 7th February 2012 challenging the said order of,,,,
suspension as being illegal and further challenging the action of nonÂpayment of subsistence allowance to him, thereby infringing his right to livelihood",,,,
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He assailed the order of suspension on the ground that his services are protected under,,,,
Section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 and he alleged that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned",,,,
order without prior approval of the Education Officer/Education Inspector as is imperative under Rule 33(1) of the MEPS Rules 1981, is badÂinÂ‐",,,,
law. The petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside of the suspension order dated 14th June 2011 and also sought a relief of payment of,,,,
subsistence allowance, pursuant to the said order of suspension at the rate prescribed as per Rule 34 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School",,,,
Rules 1981.Â,,,,
This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by issuing the direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay,,,,
subsistence allowance to the petitioner, by an order dated 19th June 2013. However, in light of the fact that the Notice of Motion came to be allowed",,,,
and the Writ Petition came to be restored to its file, the petitioner sought amendment in the writ petition and prayed for further direction to treat the",,,,
petitioner as being retired from 28th February 2014 and seeking directions to the respondent nos.1 and 2 to submit the pension papers of the petitioner,,,,
by treating him as in full time employment on 28th February 2014 and on computing his pension by calculating the full wages for 10 months prior to the,,,,
said date. A direction was also sought to the state authorities’ i.e. Respondent nos.3 and 4 to process and disburse the retirement dues of the,,,,
petitioner by treating him as being in full time employment on 28th February 2014.,,,,
4 In response to the said petition, an affidavit in reply is filed on 17th March 2013 by the respondent nos.1 and 2. In response to the amended",,,,
petition, it is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in the amended petition in view of the fact that the petitioner",,,,
sought employment to the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of a forged B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The",,,,
said affidavit sought to place reliance on the earlier affidavit wherein it was demonstrated as to how a fraud was played by the petitioner, and this",,,,
would disentitle him for the retirement benefits. It is also stated in the affidavit that an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner and he was,,,,
prosecuted and the trial in relation to the said charges is pending. It is also further clarified in the affidavit that the petitioner was not suspended but,,,,
was removed from service and therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner against the removal is to approach the School Tribunal by filing an",,,,
appeal.Â,,,,
5 We have heard Senior counsel Mr.Mihir Desai appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Shri Suresh Lanke for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms.Uma",,,,
Palsuledesai, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.",,,,
6 On perusal of the writ petition, and on hearing the learned Senior counsel Mr.Mihir Desai, it is apparent that the petitioner claims to have been",,,,
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.2 school run by respondent no.1 with effect from 13th June 1995. The petitioner claims to,,,,
be possessing a Bachelor degree in Science (B.Sc) and Post Graduate Degree in Science from the Gorakhpur University. He also claims to have,,,,
acquired a B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University in the year 1985. It is the case of the petitioner that in the backdrop of his,,,,
educational qualification, he came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the recognized secondary school and he is continuously working in the said",,,,
school.  According to the petitioner, his appointment was approved by the educational authorities. Though the petitioner has not placed on",,,,
record the orders of appointment, he has placed on record a certificate issued by the Head Master reflecting that the petitioner is working in the",,,,
respondent school as Assistant Teacher since 13th June 1995 and another certificate dated 31st March 2006 indicating his date of appointment, date",,,,
of birth and date of retirement and to demonstrate that the petitioner was working as permanent Assistant Teacher.,,,,
The controversy in the service career of the petitioner commenced when he was issued with an order dated 14th June 2011 which is impugned in the,,,,
Sr.
No",Year,"Examin
Âation",Roll No.,True Information
2,1985,"B.Ed
Exams",3017,"As per this University record name of other candidate of Roll No. is shown.
Hence, the degree submitted is forged one.
8 The petitioner, therefore, deserves no sympathy from us. It is pertinent to note that in light of the earlier directions issued by this Court, in",,,,
response to the petition filed by the petitioner on 19th June 2013, the respondents were directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in",,,,
accordance with the rules. The petitioner has instituted proceedings under Contempt of Court for non-compliance of the said directions. We have,,,,
noted that in compliance of the said directions, the Educational Inspector had issued directives to the respondent no.2 to pay the subsistence allowance",,,,
and accordingly, a cheque of Rs.1, 13,282/ came to be issued to the petitioner towards the subsistence allowance. It is claimed by the petitioner in",,,,
the Contempt Petition that the amount was deficit by Rs.9, 15,623/Â calculating the subsistence allowance from 15th June 2011 till the date of",,,,
retirement i.e. 28th February 2014. However, the said amount has not been paid but what has been paid to the petitioner is an amount of Rs.1,",,,,
13,282/ (an amount of Rs.74,602/ + Rs.38,680/Â) which came to be deposited in his account. Since we are convinced that the petitioner is not",,,,
entitled for any subsistence allowance and in fact by the impugned order dated 14th June 2011, the services of the petitioner itself were put to an end",,,,
being terminated in light of the fraud being revealed and on the directions and instructions of the Education Inspector, the petitioner is not entitled for",,,,
any subsistence allowance. The directions issued by this Hon'ble Court to pay the subsistence allowance on 19th June 2013, no longer subsists in",,,,
view of the Notice of Motion being filed by the management being allowed by this Court and Writ Petition No.469 of 2012 being restored to its file.,,,,
We have therefore, heard the Writ Petition in presence of respondent nos.1 and 2 and have arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner's",,,,
services came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 14th June 2011 on account of the fraud being played by him. We are of the clear,,,,
opinion that the order passed by the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity, not in the least from the nonobservance of the principles of",,,,
natural justice. The said order is upheld since the services of the petitioner are put to an end by the said order. Since the petitioner has already,,,,
been paid certain amount towards subsistence allowance, in view of the subsisting directions of this Court, we do not intend to recover the said amount",,,,
from the petitioner. However, we direct that the respondents are no longer liable to disburse any further amount towards subsistence allowance in",,,,
terms of the said directions issued by this Court. The said amount be adjusted towards any dues to be settled treating the petitioner to have been,,,,
terminated from service with effect from 14th June 2011.,,,,
9 Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience of the order dated 19th June 2013 passed in Writ Petition No.469/12 by which the,,,,
respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to ensure that the respondent nos.1 and 2 pay the petitioner the subsistence allowance in accordance with the,,,,
rules. In view of the fact that the said order dated 19th June 2013 has been recalled in view of Notice of Motion filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2,,,,
and the writ petition no.469/12 being restored, the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner does not deserve any consideration. Further, as regards",,,,
the compliances made in furtherance of the order dated 19th June 2013, we have already issued direction in the foregoing paragraph.",,,,
In light of the aforesaid reasoning, facts and circumstances, the writ petition as well as Contempt Petition No.57 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as",,,,
to costs.,,,,