BANSILAL Vs. SECRETARY RASHTRIYA HINDI VIDYALAY SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The party appears in person. He challenges hot only the order of suspension, pending the enquiry, but the initiation of enquiry under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions service) Rules, 1981.

(2.) ACCORDING to him, the inquiry initiated is mala fide and hence, the enquiry itself should be quashed. His next contention is that for initiation of the enquiry, as well as for suspension, a Resolution of the managing Committee of Respondent Number 1 - Society, was necessary and it was not passed. His third contention is that whereas the Management has asked permission of the Education Officer under Regulation 36, the Education Officer has granted permission under Regulation 33 (1), and therefore, it is bad in law and also shows non-application of mind ; and his last contention is that it is not necessary to suspend him during the inquiry. In support of his contention, he has relied upon certain authorities.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the present suspension is pending the inquiry and the management under Regulation 33 (1) has powers to suspend an employee during the pendency of the inquiry, if the Management feels that it is necessary to do so in the interest of a fair and expeditious inquiry. The management, by filing an Affidavit, has relied on a Resolution of April 1988 by which, it is decided to hold the inquiry and suspend the Petitioner. Whether the Resolution is a genuine one or not, as is sought to be contended by the Petitioner is a matter for evidence, and the petitioner can challenge it before the appropriate forum. It is true that the management has asked for permission of the Education Officer for suspending him and while seeking permission, as stated earlier, it has referred to Regulations 36. Regulation 36 does not make any provision for suspension and it is Regulation 33 (1) which makes the said provision. Obviously, therefore, while seeking the permission, the number of the regulation which was quoted was incorrect. A reference to incorrect provision does not make, either the permission sought or the permission given, illegal. The permission is given under the correct regulation.