Bombay High Court
Bhaskar S/O Ramrao Bengal vs Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha on 5 July, 2013
Author: S.S. Shinde
Bench: S.S. Shinde
1 wp3100.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3100 OF 2012
Bhaskar s/o Ramrao Bengal,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. 'Anandi Niwas', Gajanan Nagar,
Karegaon Road, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani. ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha,
Ganesh Nagar, Khandoba Bazar Road,
Dist. Parbhani
Through its President.
2. Adarsha Vidyalaya, Varundavan Colony,
Karegaon Road, Parbhani,
Dist. Parbhani.
Through it's Head Master.
3. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani.
4. State of Maharashtra,
School Education Dept.
Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6105 OF 2012
1. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha,
Parbhani through its President,
Suryakant s/o Mukundrao Hake,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agri. & Business,
R/o. Ganesh Nagar,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::
2 wp3100.12
2. Adarsha Vidyalaya, Vrundavan Colony,
Karegaon Road, Parbhani,
Through its Head Master. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Bhaskar s/o Ramrao Bengal,
Age: 48 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. Anandi Niwas, Gajanan Colony,
Karegaon Road, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.
2. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioners in W.P.
No.3100/2012 and for Resp. No.1 in W.P. No.
6105/2012.
Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Resp. Nos.1 & 2 in
W.P. No.3100/2012 and for petitioner in W.P. No.
6105/2012.
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.3 & 4 in
W.P. No.3100/2012 and for Resp. No.2 in W.P. No.
6105/2012.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 21-06-2013
PRONOUNCED ON : 05-07-2013
JUDGMENT :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::3 wp3100.12
2. The Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 is filed by the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 decided by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur on 2nd December, 2011.
. The Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 only takes exception to the clause-(3) of the operative part of the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur. By the clause (3), the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has ordered that, the appellant shall be treated under suspension from the date of order i.e. 2nd December, 2011 passed by the School Tribunal till the completion of the enquiry and shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule for the said period. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 who is the respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012, is the original appellant before the School Tribunal, therefore, for convenience, the parties will be referred to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 4 wp3100.12 as 'original appellant" and "original respondents".
3. The original appellant filed Appeal No. 43 of 2010 before the School Tribunal, Latur Region, Latur challenging his termination of his services. Original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 terminated services of the original appellant from 25th August, 2010. The appellant contended before the School Tribunal that, he is possessing the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teacher and was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondents by following due procedure of law on 1st October, 1991. His services were confirmed and he is the senior most teacher prior to the issuance of dismissal order.
It was further contended by the appellant that, the respondent management runs two schools (1) Aadarsh Vidyalaya, Parbhani (2) Holkar Vidyalaya at Khadki, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. One Mr. Saste A.B. was appointed on 2nd December, 1991 as Headmaster at Holkar Vidyalaya although he is ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 5 wp3100.12 junior in service to the appellant. It was told to the appellant that, Mr. Saste was appointed as in charge Headmaster only. It is further case of the appellant that, one Mr. Naik who is close relative of the respondent No.1 came to be appointed as in charge Headmaster ignoring the seniority and legitimate right of the appellant for the post of Headmaster. It was further case of the appellant that, Mr. Saste and Mr. Naik were appointed without following procedure laid down in M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. On 25th November, 2005 letter was addressed by the appellant to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Parbhani calling therein, for appointing him as Headmaster considering seniority list existed on the date of vacancy arose due to demise of Mane Mohan Vitthalrao. It was contended by the appellant that, time and again he requested the respondent management to promote him as Headmaster but except oral assurance, the respondent management remained inactive and continued Mr. Naik as in charge Headmaster. It was alleged by the appellant that, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 6 wp3100.12 the respondent management time and again extended threats to him that, he will be discontinued from service in case he agitates his grievance again and again. It is the case of the appellant that, since the appellant refused to relinquish his right over the post of Headmaster, the respondent management started issuing notices to the appellant so as to remove the him from services of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The appellant preferred Appeal No. 72 of 2007 before the School Tribunal praying therein, for appointing him as Headmaster, however, the respondent management asked the appellant to withdraw the said appeal.
The appellant refused to withdraw the said appeal.
It is the case of the appellant that, said refusal of withdrawal of the appeal resulted in issuance of show cause notice on 31st August, 2008 to the appellant by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said notice was duly replied by the appellant on 9th September,2008.
. It was further contended by the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 7 wp3100.12 before the School Tribunal that, the respondent management hurriedly conducted the inquiry and terminated services of the appellant. The said order of termination of the services of the appellant was challenged by the appellant in Appeal No. 30 of 2008 before the School Tribunal, Latur. The said appeal was allowed. The judgment and order in Appeal No. 30 of 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur was challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2009. The High Court was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 30 of 2008 and directed the respondent management to conduct inquiry by giving opportunity to the appellant to defend his case.
4. In pursuant to the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2009, show cause notice was issued to the appellant and the inquiry commenced against the appellant. It was stated by the appellant that, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 8 wp3100.12 the respondent management did not conduct inquiry by following the mandate of Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 (for short, "said rules").
It was further contended by the appellant that,the inquiry committee was not constituted properly, the charges levelled against the appellant were vague, author of all the complaints namely Mr. Naik was not examined, officer of the police station was not called during inquiry to ascertain the charges and the subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant. The appellant contended that, each member of the committee filed separate report which is inconsistent to the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules. The inquiry was conducted in violation of the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules, therefore, action of termination of services taken on the basis of such inquiry report, is illegal and not sustainable, so requires to be quashed and set aside and the appellant requires to be reinstated in service with back wages.
5. It appears that, the respondent Nos. 1 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::9 wp3100.12 and 2 herein, filed their written statement at Exhibit-24 resisting the contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also filed additional say alongwith list of documents at Exhibit-27 before the School Tribunal. The sum and substance of contentions raised in the written statement filed by the respondent management before the School Tribunal is that, the appellant is Assistant Teacher of their school appointed by following due procedure of law, but they denied the allegations of the appellant against them in respect of his supercession and illegal termination. It is admitted by the answering respondents that, the appellant is the senior most teacher in the respondent management and Mr. Saste is junior to the appellant. It is also admitted that, Mr. Saste was appointed as in charge Headmaster in Holkar Vidyalaya. However, it was denied that, he is appointed as regular Headmaster. There was denial by the management to the allegations of the appellant. The management has also denied that, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 10 wp3100.12 management intentionally issued notice to the appellant to protect Mr. Naik and deprive the appellant from the post of Headmaster. There are other denials by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the allegations of the appellant in appeal. So far inquiry is concerned, the management stated that, inquiry is conducted as per procedure laid down under the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules.
.
After considering the rival contentions, the School Tribunal framed necessary points for determination. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal held that, termination order dated 25th August, 2010 terminating services of the appellant cannot sustain in law, accordingly, said was quashed and set aside by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal. The respondent management was directed to conduct fresh inquiry against the appellant by giving opportunity of being heard to defend the appellant in accordance with provisions of law. By clause (3) of the operative part of the order, the School Tribunal ordered that, the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 11 wp3100.12 appellant shall be treated under suspension from the date of order of the School Tribunal till completion of the inquiry and shall be entitled for subsistence allowance as per rules for the above said period.
. The Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 was heard by this Court for admission on 30th July, 2012 when notices were issued to the respondents.
In the Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 also this Court was pleased to issue notices to the respondents. In pursuant to the notices issued to the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their affidavit in reply.
6. Relying upon the pleadings in Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 and affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012, the learned Counsel appearing for the original respondent Nos.
1 and 2 and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 made following submissions.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::12 wp3100.12 . It is submitted that, the petitioners have filed the writ petition No. 6105 of 2012 challenging the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 thereby set aside the termination order dated 25th August, 2010 against the respondent No.1 and directed fresh enquiry against him. It is further submitted that, the petitioner No.1 is running various schools and colleges through his educational society. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal should have dismissed the appeal on the ground that, it had become infructuous, since after termination order dated 25th August, 2010, the respondent No.1 is appointed as assistant teacher on the Vidyaniketan High School at Kolsa by order dated 10th November, 2010. It is further submitted that, as the respondent No.1 is appointed as assistant teacher with some other school, the appeal against his termination should have been dismissed as infructuous. Not only this, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 13 wp3100.12 but the respondent No.1 is also appointed as incharge head master with the Vidyaniketan High School, Kolsa by order dated 1st May, 2011 and approval is also granted by the Education Officer by order dated 18th March, 2011 to the appointment of respondent No.1 as assistant teacher.
7. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.1 is duly enquired into and thereafter after following due procedure of law termination order dated 25th August, 2010 is passed. Earlier also, after conducting due enquiry the services of the respondent No.1 were terminated, however, denovo enquiry was directed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 153 of 2009 and after conducting the denovo enquiry, again services of the original appellant are terminated.
It is further submitted that, Presiding Officer, School Tribunal set aside the termination on very technical ground. The sole ground for setting aside the order of termination in the impugned order is that, three members of the enquiry ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 14 wp3100.12 committee had not submitted joint report in respect of enquiry conducted against the respondent No.1. On this ground, termination order is set aside and re-enquiry is directed, however, the enquiry should have been directed from the point where it was faulty in stead of directing denovo enquiry and not from the initial stage.
. It is further submitted that, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal has failed to consider that, when there are three members, one is represented by the management and one is represented by the employee, there are least chances of submission of joint report. By any stretch imagination it is not possible that, the representative of the management and the representative of employee will submit joint report and, therefore, the decision of the majority should have been taken into consideration in stead of setting aside the termination. The petitioners have submitted various documents on record to show the unauthorized absenteeism, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 15 wp3100.12 misconduct and negligence of the respondent No.1 during the service. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.1 was not performing his duty as assistant teacher with sincerity and honesty and he is guilty of misconduct, unauthorized absenteeism and persistent negligence in his duty.
8. It is further submitted that,the services of the respondent No.1 are terminated by conducting due enquiry, because he was absent for more than 350 days without taking permission from the Headmaster. The conduct of the respondent No. 1 was arrogant with seniors and more particularly with incharge Headmaster. Thus, it is clear that, the respondent No. 1 was not performing his duty as assistant teacher with the petitioner management. It is further submitted that, the respondent No.1 was assigned the work of preparation of voters list during period of general election, however, he remained absent from the work of election duty and deputed another person (Mr. Likhe) who was teacher in the school ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 16 wp3100.12 run by the petitioner No.1. The said act came to the knowledge of the Tahsildar and detailed enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry the respondent No.1 was found guilty for the same and therefore, as per the directions of the Education Department an offence under section 32 of the Peoples Representation Act, is also registered against the respondent No.1.
.
It is further submitted that, the respondent No.1 had also threatened to kill the incharge headmaster in the school premises and non cognizable case to that effect is also registered against the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that, considering the material on record and serious charges of misconduct, unauthorised absenteeism and persistent negligence, the respondent No.1 was rightly terminated by the petitioners after conducting due enquiry and therefore, the order of termination should not have been set aside by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in appeal. Therefore, the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 17 wp3100.12 learned Counsel submits that, Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 may kindly be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur and order of termination dated 25th August, 2010 may kindly be upheld.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the original appellant submitted that, the dismissal order passed by the respondent management is set aside on the ground of non observance of procedure of inquiry and denovo inquiry has been directed by the Tribunal, in that case delinquent employee is entitled to claim suspension allowance from the date of earlier dismissal order till completion of denovo inquiry. The learned Counsel pressed into service exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal and another vs. Education Officer and another [(2007) 11 S.C.C. 352] (Civil Appeal No. 640 of 2007) decided on 7th February, 2007.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::18 wp3100.12 . It is submitted that, the respondent management promoted junior teacher as headmaster.
The appellant did file appeal No. 72 of 2007 before the School Tribunal, questioning therein promotion of junior teacher as headmaster. The respondent management with a view to deprive the appellant to claim post of the headmaster started departmental inquiry and without following principles of natural justice and procedure of inquiry dismissed him from service on 17th June, 2008, however, said termination order was set aside by the School Tribunal on 27th January, 2009.
It is submitted that, Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2009 preferred by the management has been decided by this Court thereby setting aside the order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal NO. 30 of 2008. By the said order, High Court permitted management to conduct fresh inquiry against the appellant in which the appellant was to get opportunity to defend himself in accordance with the provisions of law.
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::19 wp3100.12 According to the said order, the appellant was supposed to be treated under suspension from the termination and he shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rules from the date of termination of his service till completion of inquiry. It is submitted that, High Court granted suspension allowance from the date of termination till completion of inquiry. It is submitted that, the respondent management again conducted inquiry and dismissed the appellant from service on 25th August, 2010. The appellant preferred Appeal No. 43 of 2010 before the School Tribunal, Latur. The School Tribunal, Latur on 2nd December, 2011 in Appeal No. 43 of 2010 has quashed and set aside the termination order of the appellant dated 25th August, 2010. It is submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that, the said termination order has been quashed and set aside taking recourse to the judgment in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra), and the management is directed to conduct fresh inquiry. It is submitted that, the learned Presiding Officer, School ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 20 wp3100.12 Tribunal has wrongly held that, the appellant shall be treated under suspension on the date of the order of the Tribunal till completion of inquiry and shall be entitled to subsistence allowance as per rule for the said period. It is submitted that, suspension allowance has to be paid from the date of termination i.e. 25 th August, 2010 till completion of the inquiry. It is submitted that, to the extent of clause (3) of the order by the School Tribunal, the appellant is aggrieved and therefore, writ petition is preferred by the appellant. It is submitted that, the appellant is accommodated in management institution subsequently. It is submitted that, by deducting amount towards salary which is being paid to the appellant after appointing him by the management, he may be paid subsistence allowance from the date of termination till completion of inquiry.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the original appellant relying upon the exposition of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 21 wp3100.12 the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra) would contend that, the Supreme Court has interpreted provisions of Rule 37 sub rule (6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and held that, said rule is mandatory in nature and has to be strictly complied with. Therefore, he submits that, members of the inquiry committee should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. However,in the facts of the present case,the committee members have submitted separate report and therefore, entire inquiry is vitiated.
Therefore, he submits that, Writ Petition No.6105 of 2012 deserves to be dismissed with costs.
11. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, with their able assistance perused the entire material placed on record and also provisions of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules and also judgment in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra). Upon careful consideration of findings recorded by the Presiding Officer, School ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 22 wp3100.12 Tribunal, Latur from paragraphs-8 to 11, there is no doubt that, the School Tribunal has appreciated provisions of Rule 37 sub rule (6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 in the light of interpretation of the said rule by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra). While considering the case in its entirety, the School Tribunal framed as many as three issues for its determination.
The School Tribunal, Latur held that, termination order dated 25th August, 2010, issued by the management terminating services of the appellant is null and void. The School Tribunal has adverted to certain facts in paragraph-7 of the impugned judgment. In paragraph-8 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has discussed Point Nos. 1 to 3 and the evidence led by the parties in respect of said points framed for determination. In paragraph-11 the School Tribunal has adverted to the inquiry report and observed that, termination order under challenge is passed upon inquiry reports which are separately and independently filed by each member of the inquiry committee. It is further observed ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 23 wp3100.12 that, three independent reports submitted by the members of the inquiry committee are not in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and ultimately, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur was pleased to set aside the termination order dated 25th August, 2010.
12. At this juncture, it would apposite to reproduce herein below the sub rule (6) of Rule 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, which reads thus ;
"37(6) On receipt of such further explanation or if no explanation is offered within the aforesaid time the Inquiry Committee shall complete the inquiry and communicate its findings on the charges against the employee and its decision on the basis of these findings to the Management for specific action to be taken against the employee or the Head, as the case may be, within ten days after the date fixed for receipt of further explanation. It shall also forward a copy of the same by registered ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 24 wp3100.12 post acknowledgment due to the employee or the Head, as the case may. A copy of the findings and decision shall also be endorsed to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director, as the case may be, by registered post acknowledgment due. Thereafter, the decision of the Inquiry Committee shall be implemented by the Management which shall issue necessary orders within seven days from the date of receipt of decision of the Inquiry Committee, ig by registered acknowledgment due. The Management shall post also endorse a copy of its order to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director as the case may be."
13. The Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Rule 37(6) of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 in case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra) and in paragraph-9 it is held thus ;
"9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, Rule 37 (6), which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 25 wp3100.12 members, as already noticed, only one member nominated by the Management has submitted his Inquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37 (6) and admittedly, the other two members nominated by the employee and an independent member have not submitted their report within the time prescribed under Rule 37 (6). However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, though noticed that the two members out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said findings by the two members of the committee were submitted after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). In our opinion, the report submitted by individual members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of three members are appointed to inquire into a particular matter, all the three should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. Since the report is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 26 wp3100.12 and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back wages. Since the reinstatement and back wages now ordered are quite contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 37 (6), we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, and learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench of the High Court. In addition, we also set aside the order passed by the Management based on the report submitted by the single member of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules. "
14. Upon careful perusal of rule 37(6) of the said Rules, and on interpretation of the said rule by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra), members of the inquiry committee should submit their combined report within stipulated time whether consenting or otherwise.
In the facts of the present case, it is admitted position that, no such combined report has been submitted by the inquiry committee. In that view of the matter, findings recorded by the School Tribunal, Latur from paragraphs-8 to 11 cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 27 wp3100.12 said to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, challenge to the said judgment and order by the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by way of filing Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 should fail.
15. In Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 the original appellant is aggrieved only by clause (3) of the operative part of the order by the School Tribunal, Latur. Upon perusal of the judgment, the School Tribunal has not recorded any reasons in the light of relevant Rules for issuing directions to pay subsistence allowance from passing of the date of order by the School Tribunal till completion of the inquiry. It appears that, relevant rules have not been adverted by the School Tribunal in respect of payment of subsistence allowance. Therefore, in the light of discussion herein above, judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Latur is confirmed except clause (3). So far clause (3) is concerned, same is modified and liberty is granted to the original appellant to approach the Education Officer or ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 28 wp3100.12 Deputy Director of Education, as the case may, for payment of suspension allowance. If the original appellant approaches the Education Officer or Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, such authority shall consider the issue of payment of suspension allowance in the light of relevant rules under M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 and accordingly pass appropriate order after hearing all concerned. It will be open for the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education to adjust the payment of salary to the original appellant since according to him, he is reappointed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their institution in another school. This Court has not expressed any opinion about entitlement of suspension allowance and it is left to the Education Officer/Deputy Director of Education to look into the relevant rules and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
16. Writ Petition No. 6105 of 2012 stands dismissed. Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2012 stands ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 ::: 29 wp3100.12 disposed of on above terms. Rule made absolute on above terms.
sd/-
[S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/July13 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:03:53 :::