Bombay High Court
Balasaheb Bapuso Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
1/3
Digitally
16.WP.6567.2021.doc
signed by
ANANT
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAIK Date:
2022.12.20
10:51:43
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6567 OF 2021
Balasaheb Bapuso Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Chetan G. Patil for the Petitioners. Smt. P. N. Diwan, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATED : 15th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C.:
1. Petitioner nos. 1 to 11 are the employees of the Ashram School recognized by the petitioner no. 12-Education Institution.
2. Having regard to an serious incident of commission of offence by the employees of the Ashram School under the provisions of POCSO Act, the recognition of the Ashram School was withdrawn on 22/03/2017. However, it is claimed that in an appeal, the State Government stayed the same on 08/08/2017 and ultimately vide order dated 11/09/2019 recommendation was restored.
3. Relying on the provisions of Ashram School Code particularly clause 3.6.4, the respondent-State Government has refused to akn 1/3 2/3
16.WP.6567.2021.doc release the salary grant, whereas the petitioners by taking shelter of the clause 3.6.3 claims that by statutory fiction the order of withdrawal of the recognition automatically get stayed the moment the petitioner-management prefers an appeal.
4. As such, according to him, the respondents-authorities are duty bound to release the salary grant of the petitioner nos. 1 to 11- employees who cannot be faulted for the commission of the offence in question.
5. Learned AGP would oppose the prayer as according to her the petitioners-employees remained mute spectator to an heinous act of commission of the offence under the provisions of POCSO Act on the students taking education in the very said school by her co-student so also staff i.e. cook and superintendent.
6. According to her, since the petitioner no. 12-management so also the petitioners have not taken steps to avoid commission of such offence the said Government order is quite justified.
7. At this stage, this Court intends to look into the charge sheet which is pending consideration under the provisions of POSCO Act against the two employees of the petitioner no. 12-management.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire charge-sheet shall be placed on record within a period of six akn 2/3 3/3
16.WP.6567.2021.doc weeks from today.
9. The matter to come up for consideration on 08/02/2023.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) akn 3/3