GEETA SHRIDHAR GADRE Vs. BRAHMAN SHIKSHAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner who was headmistress of a school run by the Respondent No. 1 trust has claimed various reliefs; the sum and substance of which is that the petitioner is claiming payment of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits from the date of her suspension i. e. 10. 05. 2000 till 30. 09. 2003, i. e. the date of her retirement. The petitioner is also praying for pension on the said basis.

(2.) The factual matrix involved in the present petition is stated thus :. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the school run by the Respondent No. 1, namely, Maharashtra vidhyalay on 9th of June, 1969. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as supervisor and assistant headmistress in due course and on 16th July, 1998 the petitioner was promoted as headmistress in the Vartak nagar Madhyamik Vidhayalay run by the respondent No. 1.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Chief Conductor for the S. S. C. examination of March, 1999 for which the said Vartak Nagar School was a centre. As per the practice for the said S. S. C. examination, the answer sheets are assessed in the school itself. It appears that one Shashikant Patil who was appointed as an examiner misplaced a bunch of 27 papers of the said examination. The petitioner immediately took steps on being informed by Shri Patil of the said loss by contacting the S. S. C. Board and also lodged F. I. R with the Vartak Nagar Police Station. Inspite of the best efforts of the petitioner and the staff of the school the said papers could not be located. It appears that the issue was raised in the Legislative Assembly, wherein a statement came to be made that the concerned teachers of the school would be suspended. Accordingly, a direction came to be issued by the Education Officer, thane vide letter dated 10. 5. 2000 to the Management i. e. the Respondent No. 1 to suspend the petitioner and the said Shashikant Patil. The Management proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and said shashikant Patil and accordingly, the petitioner and the said Patil were suspended from 11. 05. 2000. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 4. 8. 2000 and special charge-sheet also came to be served on the petitioner on 6. 9. 2000. In spite of the cooperation of the petitioner, the said enquiry was not completed within time stipulated under the Maharashtra employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. The enquiry was ultimately completed on 21. 11. 2000 and the report was finalized in the said enquiry. The petitioner was exonerated. The petitioner was only issued a warning to be careful in future. After the statutory period of 120 days was over, the petitioner had requested the management to reinstate the petitioner. However, the management vide its letter dated 7. 9. 2000 communicated to the petitioner that the issue regarding her suspension has-been referred to the education Officer for further guidance. The petitioner was also informed that extension of suspension of the petitioner is sought from the Dy. Director. The petitioner thereafter submitted various representations to the respondents, requesting the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume duties after completion of 120 days of suspension.