DNYANGANGA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was heard alongwith other connected petitions, however, for the sake of convenience, we are deciding the petition separately, though the facts and documents are common.

(2.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26.12.2017 (Exh. 'N') passed by the respondent No. 3 appointing respondent No. 4 to sign the salary and other bills of the teaching and non-teaching staff of Dyanganga Public School, Wadgaon-Kolhati, Tahsil and Distt. Aurangabad, with a further direction to the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to accept the pay/salary bills submitted by the Headmistress, as appointed by the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Mangala Namdeo Nikam and accordingly to release the salary of the employees of the petitioner-school. Further relief has been sought of a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to recover the salary paid to the respondent No. 6 from 12.06.2016 onwards and to take appropriate legal action against the concerned responsible person who has illegally disbursed the salary to respondent No. 6.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an educational institution, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and is running a school at village Wadgaon-Kolhati from Standards 1 to 7. It is submitted that on 16.05.2014, the petitioner had filed an application for transfer of the school, which was earlier named as, Indira Primary School, and was operating from Baijipura, Aurangabad to Wadgaon-Kolhati, to which proposal, respondent No. 6, who was then the Headmistress of the school, had given her consent in writing alongwith other teaching and non-teaching staff. Not only this, respondent No. 6 had, in fact, actively participated in issuing the various consent letters, certificates necessary to be annexed with the proposal. Respondent No. 6 is further said to have been instrumental in holding a parents meet, whereby the parents had granted consent for transfer of the school by way of a resolution, being assured that their wards would be accommodated in another school in the same locality by name, Amar High School, which had already given its consent for taking in the students of the petitioner-school. It is contended that the proposal as submitted by the petitioner school, was verified by the respondent No. 3/E.O., who then forwarded the same to the respondent No. 2 vide his letter/report dated 07.06.2014. The respondent No. 2, in turn, vide its letter dated 11.07.2014 forwarded the petitioner's proposal to the State Government with a positive recommendation, consequent to which the State Government vide order dated 19.03.2015 granted permission to transfer the school, which was informed by the respondent No. 2, vide his letter dated 22.05.2015 to the respondent No. 3/Education Officer (Primary), whereupon the respondent No. 3/Education Officer, vide order dated 03.09.2015 granted permission to transfer the school from Baijipura to Wadgaon-Kolhati, as a result of which, the school which was originally running at Baijipura, Aurangabad, was transferred to Wadgaon-Kolhati from the academic year 2015-2016, since which period the petitioner is running the school at Wadgaon-Kolhati. It is further submitted that respondent No. 6, who had earlier consented in writing to the transfer, and in fact, was instrumental in preparing the documents necessary for such proposal, who had in fact worked as a Headmistress at the transferred place, suddenly turned around and had challenged the transfer of the school. This challenge has been made in Writ Petition No. 5706/2016, which we have decided today by a separate judgment. It is then submitted that respondent No. 6, who was the Headmistress at the relevant time, was found to have committed various illegalities, as a result of which, vide letter dated 25.01.2016 the petitioner sought permission of the Education Officer to put respondent No. 6 under suspension, however, no action was taken. Thereafter, vide letter dated 08.02.2016 the petitioner had intimated the respondent No. 3 that since proposal seeking permission to place respondent No. 6 under suspension was already sent to the respondent No. 3, upon which no action was taken and if no action is taken till 15.02.2016, then the petitioner would presume, that respondent No. 6 was put under suspension with effect from 15.02.2016 and in her place, one Smt. P.S. Ajmera would be the in-charge Headmistress. It is in pursuance to this that approval was granted vide order dated 29.04.2016 by respondent No. 3/E.O. (Pri) with effect from 22.02.2016 to the suspension of respondent No. 6 with a direction to complete the inquiry within a period of four months as per Rule 33 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981.