GIRISH MANOHAR MOKASHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition takes an exception to the impugned order dated 30/12/2014 bearing No.DDE/Primary-3/2014/35459 passed by Respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai. The Petitioner also seeks directions to the the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai to implement the inquiry report dated 11.05.2012 bearing Outward No.LA/LVPP/SV/Thane/2012-13/126-127 submitted by the Inquiry Officer/Accounts Audit Officer, Education Department, Thane. It is also prayed that the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai may be directed to lodge FIR against the Head Master of Respondent No.5 - School and against Respondent No.6 as per recommendations made in the aforesaid

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the the Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai has not considered the inquiry report dated 11/05/2012 submitted by the inquiry officer appointed by Education Department, Thane. It is also submitted that the impugned order is not a well reasoned order and it is passed in mechanical manner without appreciating the facts and evidence on record in proper perspective, and it does not disclose any reason as to how the Deputy Director of Education came to a conclusion without considering the enquiry officer's report dated 11/05/2020. It is further submitted that the the Deputy Director of Education ought to have decided the Petitioner's representation as per the directions given by this Court vide order dated 20/03/2013 in Writ Petition No.870 of 2013 by which order it was directed to take decision within a period of 3 months from the date of order by following the principles of natural justice by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties, however, the Deputy Director of Education has not given proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 30/12/2014 has been passed by Deputy Director of Education Mr. N B Chavhan, who had never heard the matter on 16/11/2013 as he was transferred on 25/08/2014, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order is passed by a person who had not heard the matter and on this ground itself the impugned order is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the Deputy Director of Education has passed the order after a period of near about four months without hearing the Petitioner. It is submitted that the the Deputy Director ought to have considered the fact that the Petitioner has filed the complaint in the interest of public at large and he has not personal interest in the matter. It is further submitted that due to illegal acts on the part of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 there is loss of revenue to the public exchequer and therefore the Deputy Director of Education ought to have taken necessary action against the culprits as per the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer who has been appointed at the instance of Deputy Director of Education.

(3.) Pursuant to the notice issued to the Respondents, the Respondents have filed Affidavit in Reply and Additional Affidavit in Reply and stated that the Deputy Director of Education has complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court ( (Coram : A. S. Oka & Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ) by the order dated 20/03/2013 in Writ Petition No.870 of 2013 (Girish Manohar Mokashi v/s. State of Maharashtra & or.), and to that effect one Mr. Dnyaneshwar Tulshidas Junnarkar - Deputy Inspector of Education filed the affidavit in reply dated 18/04/2015. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondents/State submitted that the Petitioner has filed Contempt Petition No.100 of 2014 for initiating contempt action against Respondent No.2 for committing contempt of order dated 20/03/2012 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.870 of 2013, however, the said contempt petition has been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Ranhjit More & Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, JJ) vide order dated 02/04/2016 dismissing the contempt petition. Therefore, the learned AGP submitted that this Petition is devoid of any merits and the same may be rejected.