RAGHUNATH NAMDEO PILORE Vs. PRESIDENT, LOKJAGRUTI SHIKSHAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 9/10/2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik in Appeal No.NSK/14/2005, whereby the said appeal came to be decided. The petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the said judgment and order.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are as follows. Respondent No. 1 is a registered educational institution running a school known as New English School, Vihitgaon, Deolali, Taluka and District Nashik, which is arrayed as Respondent No.2. The petitioner possesses the qualifications of B.A., and B.Ed. (Physical) and was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1982 in the said school. Subsequently, in the year 1987, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master. It is further the case of the petitioner that since the year 1993, he was also functioning as a Director of the respondent institution. It is not in dispute that Crime No. 110 of 2004 came to be registered against the petitioner at Bhusawal Police Station for offences punishable under Ss. 306 and 420 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the said incident was reported in a newspaper. On the basis of such publication, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 25/10/2004. The petitioner was thereafter released on bail on 1/3/2005. According to the petitioner, upon his release, when he attempted to resume duties, he was not permitted to do so by the respondent institution.

(3.) The petitioner has further contended that the constitution of the Inquiry Committee itself was not in accordance with law. It is specifically urged that the Convener of the Committee, Shri Uttamrao Handore, was not the President of the respondent institution, thereby rendering the Committee improperly constituted. It is also contended that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to nominate his representative on the Inquiry Committee. According to the petitioner, the entire inquiry was conducted in his absence and without granting him any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner asserts that relevant documents were not supplied, nor was he afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It is further contended that even the names of the members of the Inquiry Committee were not communicated to him. The petitioner points out that the first meeting of the Inquiry Committee was held on 7/7/2005, whereas the charge-sheet was issued subsequently on 23/7/2005, which, according to him, amounts to a clear violation of Rule 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. It is also urged that the respondent institution failed to call for the petitioner's explanation on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Committee. The petitioner has further alleged that the charges framed were vague and not in conformity with Rule 28(5) of the MEPS Rules, 1981. It is his case that there existed internal disputes within the management and that the disciplinary action was initiated with a predetermined intention to dismiss him from service. The petitioner has also contended that no subsistence allowance was paid during the period of suspension. On these grounds, it is contended that the entire inquiry stands vitiated and the order of dismissal based thereon is illegal, giving rise to the present proceedings.