VASANT KRUSHNAJI KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by the Chief Executive Office, Zilla Parishad, kolhapur, respondent No. 2 herein, dated 2/11/2000 by which the period between 12/09/1986 and 1/07/1996 for which the petitioner was under suspension, was ordered to be treated "as such". The grievance of the petitioner is that he ought to have been treated "on duty" and ought to have been held entitled to salary and all other consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as a primary teacher in 1960. He was served with a show cause notice on 19/08/1986 inter alia alleging therein that he had issued forged passing certificates in favour of certain students who had in fact failed and received certain amounts from them. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to give reply. The petitioner admitted the charge levelled against him. He was also placed under suspension. No departmental inquiry, however, was instituted against the petitioner. A criminal case was filed against him being Criminal Case No. 19 of 1988. He was, however, allowed to resume duty in 1996 subject to the result in criminal case. In 1996, the petitioner was acquitted by a criminal Court.

(3.) ON 8/03/2000, again, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the period of suspension of the petitioner, should not be treated "as such" i. e. period of suspension. In reply to the said notice, the petitioner clarified that though he had admitted the allegations levelled against him and receipt of the amount from students, it was under duress and coercion and the admission was not voluntary. By the impugned order, the period of suspension of the petitioner had been ordered to be treated as such. It was stated that since the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner had admitted the allegation, the period of suspension between 1986 and 1996 must be treated "as such". It was also observed that the petitioner was acquitted as there was no sufficient evidence to connect him with the crime.