2024:BHC-AUG:10814-DB

1 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.8014 OF 2022

Meera Laxman Jadhavar,

age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Deolai, Tq. Kallamb,
District Osmanabad. Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Maharashtra,

through Secretary,
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. Dy. Director of Education,

Latur Region, Latur.

3. The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

4. Jagruti Bahu Uddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha,

Latur, through Secretary,
C/o Deolai, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad. Respondents

…
Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, advocate for petitioner.
Mr P.S. Patil AGP for Respondents-State No.1 to 3.
Mr. V.G. Salgare advocate for respondent no4.
Mr. C.K. Shinde advocate for applicant in CA.
…

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12856 OF 2022

1. Balasaheb Manikrao Patil,

age 59 years, Occ. Agril
R/o Deolai, Tq. Kallamb,
District Osmanabad.
 2 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

2. Babasaheb Chandrakant Bikkad,

age 37 years, Occ. Service,
Jr. Clerk, Jagruti Vidya Mandir,
Deolali, Tq. Kallam,
District Osmanabad. Applicants.
(Third party)

Versus

1. Meera Laxman Jadhawar,

age 42 years, Occ. Service,
R/o Deolali, Tq. Kallam,
District Osmanabad.

2. The State of Maharashtra,

Through Secretary, Education Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. The Deputy Director of Education,

Latur Region, Latur

4. The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.

5. Jagruti Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha,

Latur, Through Secretary,
R/o Deolali, Tq. Kallam,
District Osmanabad. Respondents
(no.1 orig petitioner
no.2 to 5 orig resp. 1 to 4)
…
Mr C.K. Shinde, advocate for applicants.
Mr. P.S. Patil AGP for Respondents State.
Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar Advocate for petitioner in WP.
...

CORAM : SMT .VIBHA KANKANWADI &

S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

...
Reserved on : 06th May, 2024.
Pronounced on : 10th June, 2024.
…
 3 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

JUDGMENT :- (Per S.G.Chapalgaonkar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with consent of the parties at admission stage.

2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 29.6.2022

passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad,
Osmanabad – Respondent no.3 by which the post of Head Master of
Jagruti Vidyamandir Deolali, Kallamb, District Osmanabad has been
cancelled.

3. Mr. Bhavthankar, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Teacher with respondent no.4 School. Her appointment was duly
approved by the Education Officer. In the year 2013, she has been
promoted as Head Mistress. Education Officer has approved her
appointment on the post of Head Mistress, since then, petitioner
discharged her duties as per rules and regulations. There were no
complaints against her as regards to discharge of her duties either as
a teacher or head mistress of the school. Management of the School
has never issued adverse communication or show cause notice to her
nor has initiated departmental inquiry in terms of Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
(for short MEPS Rules). Surprisingly, respondent no.3 issued
impugned communication dated 29.6.2022 thereby cancelling the
post of Head Master held by the petitioner, giving reference to the
orders passed by the Respondent No. 2-Deputy Director of
Education.

4. Mr. Bhavthankar would submit that impugned order is

without jurisdiction and inconsistent with the prescribed procedure.
 4 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

He would submit that Rule 3 (1) (d) provides for appointment of the
Head Master of Secondary School. Such post is created by the
Statute and not susceptible for cancellation by respondent no.3.
Education Officer exceeded jurisdiction while passing the impugned
order. He would further submit that Rule 3 (6) of the MEPS Rules
empowers Deputy Director of Education to direct the Management
to cancel appointment made without following due procedure laid
down under the rules. However, similar powers are not vested with
the Education Officer. Education Officer cannot suo-moto exercise
such jurisdiction. Therefore, he assailed the impugned order being
ultra vires and inconsistent to the MEPS Act and Rules.

5. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patil, learned AGP appearing for

the respondent nos. 1 to 2 and Mr. V.G. Salgare learned Advocate
appearing for respondent no.3, vehemently submits that the
impugned order dated 29.6.2022 is mere communication by the
Education Officer, as regards to the order dated 16.6.2022, that has
been passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Latur, whereby
approval to promotion of the petitioner as Head Mistress has been
cancelled. Pertinently, the petitioner has not raised challenge to the
order of Deputy Director. It is submitted that the petitioner has been
promoted as a Head Mistress in Secondary School w.e.f. 1.7.2013
and approval to her promotion has been granted vide order dated
23.10.2015. On 20.12.2021 Mr. Balasaheb Manikrao Patil, r/o
village Deolali made a complaint to the District Collector
Osmanabad, alleging that Management of respondent no.4 School
forged documents and misappropriated the salary grants. It is
alleged that petitioner while discharging her duty as Head Mistress
prepared forged documents depicting appointment of one Gunvant
Bhagwan Raut as a Peon. He is an illiterate person, works as a
labour in the field of petitioner. Documents regarding his
 5 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

qualifications have been forged. Approval to his appointment has

been fraudulently obtained and the amount of grant-in-aid received
against salary bills in his name has been misappropriated by
petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, inspection of the
school was carried on 31.12.2021. However, Mr. G.B. Raut was
absent in the school. Although, he was summoned at the time of
inspection, he failed to respond. On verification of the record
leading to appointment and approval of Mr. Raut, it was revealed
that forged documents regarding educational qualifications were
pressed into service and the amount received against salary bills has
been misappropriated.

6. It is further submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid

report, respondent no.2 issued notice dated 20.1.2022 and summoned
the petitioner and office bearers of respondent no.4- management as
well as Mr. G.B. Raut, so-called employee. Consequently, approval
granted to appointment of Mr. Raut has been cancelled with further
directions to recover the pay and allowances released towards his
salary bills. It is further submitted that one more complaint made by
school employee namely Balasaheb Bikkad was received to the
office of the Education Officer. He made allegations of
misappropriation of monthly salary of teaching and non-teaching
staff by Head Mistress of the school. Explanation was called from
the petitioner as well as Management of the School vide notice dated
24.3.2022. Thereafter, recommendation was made to the office of
the Deputy Director of Education for cancellation/withdrawal of the
approval accorded to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Head Mistress.

7. In deference to said proposal, respondent no.2 Deputy

Director granted an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned and
 6 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

found that Mr. G.B. Raut had never attended the school. He was not
qualified for the appointment on the post of Peon. Petitioner has
processed his salary bills and withdrawn the amount received from
the Government. Consequently, vide order dated 15.6.2022
respondent no.2 cancelled the approval to the petitioner's
appointment on the post of Head Mistress.

8. Respondent No.4 filed his affidavit-in-reply and

supported the petition.

9. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties. We have gone through pleadings and the record
tendered into service by respective parties. Pertinently, petitioner
herself is the President of Trust who runs respondent No.4
Educational Institution, whereas her husband holds the post of
Secretary. The petitioner herself has been appointed as a Teacher in
the School and later on occupied position as Head Mistress in the
year 2013. Approval has been granted to her appointment on the
post of Head Mistress.

10. It is a matter of record that Mr. Raut was appointed as

Peon on the establishment of school. His appointment had been
approved w.e.f. 16.6.2013 vide order dated 20.8.2014 on unaided
division. It appears that subsequently, school started receiving
grant-in-aid @ 20% from 19.9.2016, which has been enhanced to
40% from November 2020. Salary bills of Mr. Raut, peon were
processed by the petitioner and amount towards grant-in-aid was
released in the joint account. Said amount appears to have been
withdrawn by the petitioner. On receipt of the complaints from the
villagers, authorities of the Education Department inspected, record
pertaining to appointment of Shri Raut. It was revealed that the
 7 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

qualification documents of Shri Raut were forged. Consequently,

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and Management. A
proposal was forwarded to the office of respondent no.2 for
cancellation of the approval of Mr Raut. In deference to proposal
forwarded by the Education Officer, respondent no.2 Deputy
Director of Education, Latur conducted hearing in presence of
Education Officer, Petitioner / Head Master of the School and Mr.
Laxman Jadhavar /Secretary of the Management. Similarly, during
hearing dated 27.1.2022 statement of Mr. Raut appears to have been
recorded, wherein he confessed that he works as servant on
agricultural field/land of Mr Laxman Jadhavar- Husband of
petitioner, since last six years. He never attended the school. He is
uneducated person. The Bank account in his name was opened by
the Secretary, but he has not operated said account at any point of
time. He never received salary as a Peon. He was never in the
service of the school. The Secretary of the School / petitioners
Husband accepted the fact that Mr. Raut is uneducated person. He
never attended the school, however, he contends that amount
received towards salary has been remitted to bank account of Mr
Raut and document regarding qualification of Mr. Raut were
submitted by the clerk i.e. Mr. Babasaheb Bikkad. The petitioner has
also accepted the aforesaid factual aspects. Consequently,
respondent no.2 vide his order dated 4.3.2022, canceled approval
granted to appointment of Mr. Raut and directed recovery of the
amount. Further directions were given to cause an inquiry as regard
to fabrication documents and initiate appropriate action against the
Head Master and Clerk of the School. In deference to aforesaid order
Respondent No.3- Education Officer had issued show cause notice
dated 24.3.2022 to the President, Secretary and Head Master of the
School. However, they failed to offer reasonable explanation,
 8 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

therefore he forwarded a proposal to withdraw approval dated

23.10.2013 granted to the appointment of petitioner as Head
Mistress. The respondent no.2 heard all concern on 9.6.2022 and
after considering stand of petitioner and Secretary of the school
passed impugned order. The order takes note of fabrication of record
and misappropriation of salary grants and directs to the Education
Officer to take further steps in the matter. In deference to the
aforesaid order passed by respondent no.2, the impugned
communication dated 29.6.2022 had been issued by the respondent
no.3-Education Officer.

11. In the aforesaid backdrop the challenge to the

impugned order needs to be examined. As rightly pointed out on
behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has not challenged the order
dated 9.6.2022, 15.6.2022 passed by the Deputy Director of
Education, Latur by which the petitioner is held responsible for
financial and administrative irregularities, particularly in relation to
appointment of Mr. Raut. Then impugned communication made by
the Education Officer informing order passed by the respondent No.
2. Certainly, in absence of the challenge to the order of Deputy
Director of Education dated 15.6.2022, challenge raised to the
impugned communication cannot be sustained.

12. Be that as it may, it is submitted on behalf of the

petitioner that the impugned order purports to cancel the post of
Head Master which cannot be sustained in law since respondents
have no authority to pass such an order. In this context, it would be
necessary to refer section 4-A of the MEPS Act, 1977, which has an
overriding effect on sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act.
Although, subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Act provides that no
employee shall be suspended, dismissed or removed by Management
 9 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

except in accordance with the provisions of Act and Rules. Section

4-A reads as under :-
Section 4A- Director's power to hold or order
holding of inquiries.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) of

section 4 or any other provisions of this Act or the rules
made thereunder, where in any case of alleged misconduct
or misbehavior of a serious nature or moral turpitude of an
employee,—

(a) an inquiry is held by an Inquiry Committee into

such allegations and the Director is of the opinion
that the Inquiry Committee has unreasonably
exonerated the employee, he may call for and
examine the record and proceeding of such inquiry
for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
correctness of the decision on the basis of its
findings, and may either annul, revise, modify or
confirm the said decision or may direct the Inquiry
Committee to make further inquiry for taking such
additional evidence as they may think necessary or
he may himself take or authorize any other officer
not below the rank of the Education Officer to take
such additional evidence ; and while making an
order under this clause, if the Director is satisfied
that the charges of serious misconduct, misbehavior,
or as the case may be, moral turpitude have been
substantially proved, he shall direct the
Management to impose on such employee any of
the penalties as specified in sub-section (4):

Provided that, the Director shall not record any

order under this sub- section without giving the
party affected thereby and the Management an
opportunity of being heard.

(b) the Management has either neglected or refused

to hold an inquiry against such employee in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the
rules made in that behalf, the Director shall direct
the Management to initiate action within thirty days
from the receipt of such direction, for holding
inquiry into the allegation against such employee
and to complete the same in accordance with such
provisions and rules.
 10 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

(2) Where there is a failure on the part of the

Management to initiate action as directed under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) to hold an inquiry and
to complete the same within the period prescribed
under the rules, the Director may himself hold, or
direct any officer not below the rank of Education
Officer to hold, such inquiry.

(3) While holding an inquiry the Director or the

officer authorized by him shall follow the same
procedure as is followed by the Inquiry Committee
under the rules made under this Act as if the
Director or the officer so authorized were an Inquiry
Committee for the purpose of holding such inquiry.

(4) On holding such inquiry by the Director himself

or on receipt of the report of the inquiry officer, if
the Director is satisfied that the charges of serious
misconduct, misbehaviour or, as the case may be,
moral turpitude have been substantially proved, he
shall, by an order in writing, direct the Management
that a penalty of dismissal, removal from service,
termination of service, or as the case may be,
reduction in rank as he may, in the circumstances of
the case deem fit, be imposed on the employee
concerned:

Provided that, no such order shall be passed by the

Director unless the employee and the Management
concerned are given a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the proposed order.

(5) The order of the Director under clause (a) of

sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) shall be binding
on both the Management and the employee and the
same shall be complied with by the Management
within such period as may be specified by the
Director.

13. Careful reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that

in specific circumstances, director is empowered to cause an inquiry
as regards to misconduct of the employee particularly, when
Management/School has failed to take appropriate action. Even,
director is empowered to appoint any other officer not below rank of
Education Officer to record evidence and after recording his own
 11 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

satisfaction he can issue directions to the Management to impose

penalty.

14. Sub-clause (b) provides that if the Management has

either declined or refused to hold any inquiry against such employee,
the Director can issue necessary directions, however, on failure of
the Management to complete the inquiry within the prescribed
period, the Director himself can initiate the inquiry and issue further
directions. Tenor, of the aforesaid provisions would show that in
exceptional circumstances, where the Management of the school
failed to conduct inquiry into misconduct of the employee, director
can take action in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

15. In the present case, petitioner herself is the President of

the Management. Her husband is a Secretary. The Educational
Institution is Managed and controlled by the petitioners family. In
this background, although there is sufficient material to show that
appointment of an agriculture labour, working in land held by
petitioners family is shown as peon and salary grants have been
misappropriated, no further action can be expected from the
Management against petitioner. Pertinently, the order regarding
cancellation of approval to appointment of Mr. Raut -Peon is not
assailed. There is no specific denial of the factual aspects that Mr.
Raut was not even qualified for appointment and forged documents
were utilized while securing approval to his appointment. Salary
grants were processed by the petitioner herself and amount received
in the joint account has been siphoned. If these aspects are
considered in light of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it
is evident that respondent no.2 has merely withdrawn/cancelled
approval granted to the appointment of the petitioner as Head
Mistress after recording finding as regards to her misconduct and
 12 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

unbecoming of Head Mistress. In fact no penalty is imposed under

impugned order which is otherwise within domain of Management.
In the aforesaid factual scenario, we are not inclined to exercise writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain
the challenge to the impugned order.

16. Prima facie, material placed before us depicts that the

petitioner in connivance of her family members, who are in control
of the Management of the School have defrauded the public
exchequer and misappropriated the amount released towards grant-
in-aid in the name of Mr Raut. Matter requires thorough
investigation by police. Unfortunately, based on observations and
findings recorded by respondent authorities alongwith material on
record, further steps ought to have been taken to set criminal law in
motion. Although sufficient material is available on record for that
purpose, respondent authorities have failed in their duty to take
matter to its logical end when fraud on public exchequer has been
observed. We are, therefore, inclined to direct the respondent no.3 –
Education Officer to lodge a police report as regards to alleged
fabrication of documents while securing appointment of Mr. Raut
and misappropriation of the amount released towards grant in aid in
his name and submit report of the compliance to this Court within a
period of two Months from the date of this order. Similarly, in facts
of the case we find that petition deserves dismissal with exemplary
cost looking to overall conduct of petitioner. Consequently, we
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) to be deposited by
petitioner within two months with High Court Legal
Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.
 13 wp 8014.2022 with ca (1).odt

ii. Respondent No.3-Education Officer, Secondary,

Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, shall lodge a police
report as regards to appointment of Mr. G.B. Raut on
the post of peon on establishment of Respondent No.
4-School, based on manipulated record and
consequential misappropriation of salary grants
released in his name, supported by the relevant
record and furnish report of compliance to this Court
within a period of (2) Two Months from the date of
this order.

iii. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. Rule

discharged.

iv. Pending civil application also stands disposed off.

No order as to costs.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )

JUDGE JUDGE

aaa/-