MADHAVRAO KUNDLIK SURYWANSHI Vs. SECRETARY JANATA JAGRUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DESPITE fervent pleas of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petitioner, who is a Headmaster of the School, is alleged to have fabricated a School Leaving Certificate and issued it to a person who was never a student of the school. It appears that the petitioner was arrested in the matter and, in fact, was in police custody for a period of three days. The petitioners was ordered to be released on bail and was released on 16th May 1998. Thereafter, by letter dated 25.6.1998, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli, informed the school authorities that the petitioner has been arrested in Crime no.49/98 for offencee under 420 read with 34 and, therefore, action should be taken against him under rule 33(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and report should be made without any delay.

(2.) THEREAFTER , by the impugned order dated 4.7.1998, the petitioner has been suspended by the management.

(3.) ALTHOUGH Mr. Anturkar is justified in his criticism, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on proper reading of the aforesaid letter of the Education Officer, we are of the view that the management has ample power under the provisions of rule 33(1) of the very rules to suspend an employee. The very fact that the competent Education Officer upon learning the arrest of the petitioner Headmaster, in fact, warned the school to take action, in our opinion, is sufficient compliance with the requirements of rule 33(1). The mere mentioning of the wrong sub-rule does not effect the validity of the order of suspension. Mr.Anturkar submitted that it is the case of the petitioner that the certificate has been fabricated by the student himself. In that behalf, Mr.Anturkar wanted us to compare the signatures on two decuments, one of which is genuine and the other is alleged to have been fabricated. He refuse to undertake such an exercise. We are satisfied that if a person in the position of a Headmaster of a school is not only charged but he also arrested and criminal proceedings are launched, than the requirement that there is a prima facie case for removal or there is reason to believe that his continuing in the active service is likely to cause embarassment or hamper investigation of the case as stated in sub-rule (1) of rule 33 is satisfied.