Bombay High Court
Sharadchandra Motiram Barsagade vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. To The ... on 19 June, 2019
Author: Sunil B. Shukre
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, S. M. Modak
1 13 WP4077.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4077 OF 2018
PETITIONER : Sharadchandra Motiram Barsagade,
Aged about 38 yrs., working as
Superintendent in Swawalambi
Apang Audyogik Niwasi Karma
Shala Sendurwafa, Tq. Sakoli,
District Bhandara.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] The State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary to the Govt.
of Maharashtra, Social Justice
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
2] The Commissioner for
physically handicapped,
Maharashtra State, Church
Road, Central Building, Pune-
51.
3] The District Social Welfare
Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Bhandara.
4] Secretary, The Secretary,
Daya Kaushalya Shikshan
Sanstha, Nagpur, Regn.
No. 11424, 334/A, Khandoba
Mandir, Shaniwari, Nagpur 440018
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 :::
2 13 WP4077.2018.odt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. A. M. Sudame a/w Mr.Mohan Sudame, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr.S.M. Ghodeswar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
Shri P. P. Pendke, Advocate for respondent No.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 19.06.2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] By the impugned order dated 1.2.2018, the withdrawal of the suspension from service of the petitioner and reinstatement of the petitioner, done by respondent No.4 school has been disapproved. The reason for the disapproval as stated in the impugned order is that procedure prescribed under the Government Resolution dated 14.10.2011 has not been followed in the present case. It has also been reasoned that the Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 ::: 3 13 WP4077.2018.odt petitioner, a teacher working with a private school is not an employee of a private school, but a government servant because for the purposes of the prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a teacher like the petitioner, working in a school receiving 100 % grants from the State, is a public servant.
3. The logic adopted in the impugned order is fallacious. It ignores the definition of a Government Servant given in Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline Appeal) Rules 1979, which is otherwise applicable to the petitioner. The impugned order also equates a public servant with government servant for the purpose of taking departmental action. A public servant is much a wider concept, which is pressed into service for launching criminal prosecutions against those found to have committed cognizable offences, especially the offences relating to indulgence in corruption. But, this concept cannot be used for terming a private school teacher Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 ::: 4 13 WP4077.2018.odt to be a government servant.
4. Section 2(g) of the aforesaid Rules of 1979 defines government servant as a person who is appointed to any Civil Service or post in connection with the affairs of the State. It is an inclusive definition incorporating therein those persons whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of any other government in India or a Company or Corporation owned or controlled by the Government or a local authority or other authority. It also includes within its fold a person who is in the service of local or other authority, whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government. By no stretch of imagination, this definition could be considered to be even remotely suggesting the possibility of inclusion of a private school teacher within the expression ''government servant'' defined in Section 2(g) of Rules 1979.
5. Against the afore stated background of definition of Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 ::: 5 13 WP4077.2018.odt government servant, if we examine definition of private school given in Section 2(20) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977, we would find that a private school teacher is excluded from the definition of the government servant given in the Rules 1979. This definition of the private school indicates that it is a school which is established or administered, by a management other than the government or a local authority. It is clear that a school not administered by the government or a local authority only could be called a private school or otherwise it would have qualified itself to be called a government school or a public school. The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 read with Rules, 1981, which are applicable to private school teachers would also be applicable here, going by the definitions of government servant given in section 2(g) of the Rules 1979 and ''Private School'' given in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 ::: 6 13 WP4077.2018.odt 6] Thus, we find that the petitioner has been erroneously considered to be a government servant and therefore, a serious mistake in law has occurred in passing the impugned order. There is no need for the respondent No.4 to place the case of the petitioner before the Committee constituted under Government Resolution dated 14.10.2011, which is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and as such there is no reason for the respondent No.1 to put on hold the reinstatement order passed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.4.
7] Thus finding substance in this petition, we allow the petition .
8] The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The order passed by the respondent No.4 withdrawing suspension and reinstating the petitioner's services is hereby restored. All the consequential benefits as per Rules shall be Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 ::: 7 13 WP4077.2018.odt made available to the petitioner.
8] Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Kavita
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 08:44:19 :::