Bombay High Court
Yadavendra Chitbahal Yadav vs The General Secretary Shree Saraswati ... on 26 June, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 985
Author: Bharati H. Dangre
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari, Bharati H.Dangre
1/25 WP-469-12(J)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.469 OF 2012
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.57 of 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.469 OF 2012
Yadavendra Chitbahal Yadav .. Petitioner
Versus
The General Secretary, Shree
Saraswati Shikshan Prasarak
Sanstha and ors .. Respondents
...
Mr.Mihir Desai, Senior Counsel with Mr.Sariputta P. Sarnath for
the petitioners.
Mr.Suresh Lanke for respondent nos.1 and 2 in WP 469/12 and
CONPW 57/13.
Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for the State for respondent nos.3
and 4 in WP 469/12.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th JUNE 2018
PRONOUNCED ON: 26th JUNE 2018
JUDGMENT (Per Bharati H. Dangre,J)
1 The present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner, initially seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 2/25 WP-469-12(J) quashing and setting aside the suspension order issued by the respondent no.1 on 14th June 2011. However, subsequently the petition came to be substantively amended seeking an appropriate writ/direction to declare that the petitioner has retired from the post of Assistant Teacher with effect from 28 th February 2018 and further seeking a direction to confer the pensionary benefits on him and to clear all his retirement dues.
The said writ petition which was filed by the petitioner on 7th February 2012 came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th June 2013 at the stage of admission. By the said order, the respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to ensure that the respondent no.1 and 2 pay to the petitioner the subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules, if necessary by deducting the same from the non-salary grant issued to the respondent nos.1 and 2.
On disposal of the said writ petition, Notice of Motion No.223 of 2013 was carried out by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in which it was alleged that while disposing of the writ petition on 19th June 2013, the Court noted that respondent nos.1 and 2 were in receipt of the Court notice, and Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 3/25 WP-469-12(J) though the affidavit was filed on behalf of the original petitioner that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were served, the respondents were never served with the notice of proceedings. In the peculiar facts placed on record by the affidavit filed in support of the Notice of Motion, the Notice of Motion came to be allowed by this Court by an order dated 14th December 2017. In the result, writ petition no.469/12 was restored to file, by the said order. The petitioner sought amendment to the writ petition in view of the intervening developments in the matter and this Court, by an order dated 27 th February 2018, granted liberty to amend the petition and opportunity was also granted to the respondents to file additional affidavit. The writ petition was listed before us and by consent of the parties, we have taken it up for final disposal.
2 The petitioner, claims to have acquired B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi after obtaining a B.Sc and M.Sc degree from Gorakhpur University. On the basis of the said educational qualifications, he came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in a recognized school run by Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 4/25 WP-469-12(J) respondent no.1 with effect from 13 th June 1995. According to the petitioner, he has been issued with a certificate by the Head Master of the respondent no.2 school which he has placed on record as Annexure-A to the petition, thereby certifying that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Nutan Vidya Mandir High School since 13th June 1995. According to the petitioner, he is a permanent employee of respondent no.2 school and has rendered 16 years of continuous service and was entitled for conferment of senior scale, and salary as per recommendation of 5th Pay and 6th Pay Commission. According to the petitioner, approval was granted to his appointment with effect from 1st May 2000 and the petitioner has placed on record the said approval order passed by the Education Inspector, Brihan Mumbai dated 17th July 2000.
It is the case of the petitioner, as set out in the petition, that he was served an order of suspension on 14 th February 2011 by the respondent no.2 in which it was alleged that he had cheated the management. The petitioner has placed on record the order dated 14 th June 2011 issued by the Secretary of the respondent no.1 and in the said Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 5/25 WP-469-12(J) communication, reference is made to a letter of Education Inspector, West Zone, Brihan Mumbai dated 13 th June 2011. As per the contentions raised in the petition, the respondent no.2 even filed an FIR at Kurar Police Station, invoking and applying alleging offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC against the petitioner. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner came to be arrested and was released on bail on 3rd November 2011. In the said offence, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and the criminal case is pending for trial in the Court of Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3 The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 in not permitting him to discharge his duty and non payment of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 7th February 2012 challenging the said order of suspension as being illegal and further challenging the action of non-payment of subsistence allowance to him, thereby infringing his right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He assailed the order of suspension Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 6/25 WP-469-12(J) on the ground that his services are protected under Section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977 and he alleged that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order without prior approval of the Education Officer/Education Inspector as is imperative under Rule 33(1) of the MEPS Rules 1981, is bad-in-law. The petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside of the suspension order dated 14th June 2011 and also sought a relief of payment of subsistence allowance, pursuant to the said order of suspension at the rate prescribed as per Rule 34 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules 1981.
This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by issuing the direction to respondent nos.1 and 2 to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner, by an order dated 19 th June 2013. However, in light of the fact that the Notice of Motion came to be allowed and the Writ Petition came to be restored to its file, the petitioner sought amendment in the writ petition and prayed for further direction to treat the petitioner as being retired from 28th February 2014 and seeking directions to the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 7/25 WP-469-12(J) respondent nos.1 and 2 to submit the pension papers of the petitioner by treating him as in full time employment on 28 th February 2014 and on computing his pension by calculating the full wages for 10 months prior to the said date. A direction was also sought to the state authorities i.e. Respondent nos.3 and 4 to process and disburse the retirement dues of the petitioner by treating him as being in full time employment on 28 th February 2014.
4 In response to the said petition, an affidavit in reply is filed on 17th March 2013 by the respondent nos.1 and 2. In response to the amended petition, it is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in the amended petition in view of the fact that the petitioner sought employment to the post of Assistant Teacher on the basis of a forged B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The said affidavit sought to place reliance on the earlier affidavit wherein it was demonstrated as to how a fraud was played by the petitioner, and this would disentitle him for the retirement benefits. It is also stated in the affidavit that an Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 8/25 WP-469-12(J) FIR was also lodged against the petitioner and he was prosecuted and the trial in relation to the said charges is pending. It is also further clarified in the affidavit that the petitioner was not suspended but was removed from service and therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner against the removal is to approach the School Tribunal by filing an appeal. 5 We have heard Senior counsel Mr.Mihir Desai appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Shri Suresh Lanke for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4.
6 On perusal of the writ petition, and on hearing the learned Senior counsel Mr.Mihir Desai, it is apparent that the petitioner claims to have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.2 school run by respondent no.1 with effect from 13th June 1995. The petitioner claims to be possessing a Bachelor degree in Science (B.Sc) and Post Graduate Degree in Science from the Gorakhpur University. He also claims to have acquired a B.Ed degree from Sampurnanand Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 9/25 WP-469-12(J) Sanskrit University in the year 1985. It is the case of the petitioner that in the backdrop of his educational qualification, he came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the recognized secondary school and he is continuously working in the said school. According to the petitioner, his appointment was approved by the educational authorities. Though the petitioner has not placed on record the orders of appointment, he has placed on record a certificate issued by the Head Master reflecting that the petitioner is working in the respondent school as Assistant Teacher since 13th June 1995 and another certificate dated 31st March 2006 indicating his date of appointment, date of birth and date of retirement and to demonstrate that the petitioner was working as permanent Assistant Teacher.
The controversy in the service career of the petitioner commenced when he was issued with an order dated 14th June 2011 which is impugned in the petition. The said order issued under the signature of the General Secretary of respondent no.2 is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the respondents. It would be appropriate to Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 10/25 WP-469-12(J) reproduce the contents of the said order which is annexed as Annexure E to the petition.
To Shri Yadavendra Chithbhai Yadav Nutan Vidya Mandir High School (Hindi Medium) Kurar Village, Malad (East) Mumbai 400 097.
Sub : Shri Yadavendra C. Yadav (Asst.
Teacher) regarding your suspension.
Ref : Letter of Educational Inspector, West Zone, Br.Mumbai Bearing No.K R1.
SHINI/PAV1/MADHY.R/11/1584 dated 13/06/2011.
You are hereby informed that, in the year 1995 you have obtained appointment as an Asstt. Teacher at Nutan Vidya Mandir High School, Hindi Medium, on the basis of Bogus Degree Certificate/Degree Certificates, thereby you have cheated the School, the Government and the Management. This has come to light as per the above referred letter. Therefore, you are removed from the employment of the school.
Therefore you are hereby given the Order of your suspension from the employment of the School w.e.f. 15/06/2011".
Perusal of the said order would reveal that at one breath, it is stated that the petitioner is removed from the employment of the school since he has obtained appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the said school on the basis of a bogus degree Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 11/25 WP-469-12(J) certificate and thereby he has cheated the school, the Government and the management. However, the next paragraph of the order states that the petitioner has been suspended from the employment of school with effect from 15th June 2011. Claiming the said order to be an order of suspension, and not of removal, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order of suspension and praying for payment of subsistence allowance from the respondent. 7 On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, it is their specific claim that by the impugned order, the petitioner was removed from service on account of the fraud played by the petitioner. In the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Respondent no.2, it is specifically stated that the petitioner has forged the degree from Gorakhpur University and he joined the services in the school of respondent no.1 on the qualification of a B.Ed Degree which was a forged one. The affidavit gives the details of the fraud that is played which has resulted into lodging of the First Information Report. The categorical stand of the respondent in the affidavit is that there Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 12/25 WP-469-12(J) is no question of grant of any subsistence allowance as prayed by the petitioner, as his services were terminated by the respondent nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the directions issued by the Education Department in light of the fraud being played by the petitioner in procuring the appointment. Further, the affidavit which is filed on 19th March 2018 by the Secretary also re- iterates its earlier stand that the petitioner was removed from service and was never suspended and in view of the said removal, the petitioner has remedy of approaching the School Tribunal. There is no affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner rebutting the stand of respondent nos.1 and 2 as reflecting in the said affidavit.
Perusal of the order which is impugned would reveal that it makes a reference to a communication from the Education Inspector, West Zone, Brihan Mumbai dated 13 th June 2011. Along with the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, the said communication has been placed on record as Annexure-7. The said letter is a communication from the Educational Inspector, West Zone, Brihan Mumbai addressed to the Secretary/Head Master of Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 13/25 WP-469-12(J) respondent no.2 school in reference to a letter of Dy. Registrar(Examination), Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi dated 10th June 2011. In the said communication, it is stated that while verifying the degree certificate personally at the said University, as per the enclosed list of teachers given in the index, the certificate of some teachers enlisted, is proved to be bogus. The name of the petitioner Shri Yadavendra Yadav is specifically mentioned in the communication. It is then stated by the Educational Inspector that since the degree submitted by Shri Yadav is bogus, he has cheated the management and education department. By the said communication, the Secretary/Head Master of the respondent no.2 was directed to lodge criminal complaint of cheating with the concerned police station against the concerned employee and it was warned that if no such action is initiated, then the management will be held responsible. The management was also asked to show cause as to why the amount of salary paid to the petitioner be not recovered from the school/management since it had appointed the employee without verifying his educational certificates of eligibility.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 :::
14/25 WP-469-12(J)
8 Based on the said communication, the Secretary of
the respondent no.2 addressed a communication to the petitioner dated 14th June 2011, thereby informing the petitioner that he had obtained appointment as an Assistant Teacher at Nutan Vidya Mandir High School on the basis of a bogus degree certificate and has cheated the school and therefore, he is removed from employment. It is also to be noted that the respondent has placed on record a communication dated 16th June 2011 addressed by the Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai to the Head Master of the respondent no.2 which reads thus :
"Sir, On the subject cited above, I have to inform you that after personal verification from the University, the Degree of the following teachers proved to be fraud.
The Degree produced by Yadavendra Yadav, who has been appointed by you is Bogus and fraud and thus, he deceived the Education Department and the School. This has been confirmed by the Government. Hence, the sanction of his appointment given by this office has been cancelled".
It is thus clear from the aforesaid correspondence that since the Education Department noticed a fraud being played by the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 15/25 WP-469-12(J) petitioner, the sanction to his appointment accorded by the Education Inspector, came to be cancelled and it became imperative on the part of the respondent no.2 to take immediate action against respondent no.2 and remove him from service.
It is the specific case of the respondent that in light of the fraud perpetrated by the petitioner, there was no need for following any specific procedure before putting an end to his services. The respondents have placed reliance on the communication from the authorized officer from the Vice Chancellor (Examination) of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi dated 10th June 2011. The said letter is addressed to the Education Inspector, West Ward, Greater Mumbai, Jogeshwari in reference to "producing true information of the examination". The said letter reads thus :
"To, Education Inspector (West Ward) Greater Bombay, Off: Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai 400060.
Ref :- Producing true information of the Examination.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 :::
16/25 WP-469-12(J)
Sir,
With reference to your letter
No.SN/P.V/14444 dated 7/6/2011 I am
furnishing herewith the following true and correct information.
Sr. Year Examin Roll No. True Information
No -ation
2 1985 B.Ed 3017 As per this University
Exams record name of other
candidate of Roll No.
is shown. Hence, the
degree submitted is
forged one.
Sd/- sd/-
eligible Satyapan Officer
10/6/2011 Sampurnanand Sanskrit
Prabhari (First) University-Varanasi.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- eligible
Vice-Chancellor (Examination)
Sampurnanand Sanskrit University
Varanasi
The Education Inspector has placed reliance on this letter in arriving at a conclusion that the B.Ed degree produced by the petitioner is forged and the petitioner had procured the appointment based on such degree, which is therefore liable to be cancelled and accordingly, the Education Officer cancelled the sanction to his appointment and issued show cause notice to the management directing it to lodge a FIR in respect of Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 17/25 WP-469-12(J) such a fraud being played by the petitioner in procuring the appointment, which attracted the offence of cheating. The management was also directed to show cause as to why the salary payable to the petitioner should not be recovered from it since the appointment was given without verifying the documents.
7 Though the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would attempt to canvass before us that the said action of the respondents in putting an end to the services is without following the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegation of fraud, we are of the clear opinion that once an act of fraud is alleged, and if the fact of fraud has been brought on record conclusively, there was no need to afford any further opportunity of hearing or to follow the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice cannot be stretched too far to assist a person who has played fraud. The Education Department has placed reliance on the communication from the Vice Chancellor (Examination) of the Sampoornanand Sanskrit Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 18/25 WP-469-12(J) University, Varanasi, who has in unequivocal terms informed the Education Authority that as per the record of the University, the name of the other candidate is shown as Roll No.3017 and hence, the degree submitted by the petitioner is forged. When the University which allegedly conferred the degree on the petitioner, itself through its competent authority has categorically stated that there was some other candidate whose name was enrolled on Roll No.3017 in the year 1985 in the B.Ed examination, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the B.Ed degree produced by the petitioner is forged one, there is no need for any further inquiry to be conducted. Based on the said report, a complaint has been lodged against the petitioner alleging that the Education Inspector, Government of Maharashtra in order to ascertain whether the B.Ed degree submitted by Yadavendra Yadav is authentic or not, had personally approached the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi so as to assess the factual position of the degree and the mark-list submitted by him and it was revealed that name of other student is mentioned in the University record. On the said allegation, that Shri Yadav had forged the B.Ed degree and Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 19/25 WP-469-12(J) the mark list and cheated the Government and School authorities in order to secure the employment, an action in respect of forgery was sought to be initiated against the petitioner. Based on the said complaint, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner by invoking and applying Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to allege violation of principles of natural justice, we are of the clear opinion that the person who has obtained the appointment on the basis of a fraudulent document is not entitled for any protection which a civil servant would normally enjoy by virtue of Article 311 of the Constitution. If the appointment of the petitioner itself was based on a fraudulent act and the appointment was secured by producing a fraudulent document by indulging into forgery, no constitutional safeguards need to be extended to a person like the petitioner. If the very appointment to a civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or illegality, a person cannot claim the protection available to a lawfully effected appointment. None the less, an appointment effected in such a manner, there can Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 20/25 WP-469-12(J) be no claim of any salary, pension and other statutory service benefits since the appointment to the post is based on a fraud being played. When a fraud is perpetuated by the petitioner, the protection available to a civil servant flowing from the service rules need not be extended to him nor it would be imperative to follow the procedure recognized by law. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. The petitioner who managed to obtain an entry into the service based on a fraudulent document does not deserve any sympathy.
As has been observed by Lord Denning in Lazarus Estate Ltd. Vs. Beasley (All ER Pg 345-C). "No Judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been vitiated by fraud. Fraud unravels everything". Thus, fraud vitiates all actions, all transactions known to law of however high a degree of solemnity. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs T. Suryachandra Rao 1 (2005) 6 SCC 149 has observed to the following effect :
1 2005(6) SCC 149 Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 21/25 WP-469-12(J) A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath (1994 (1) SCC 1).
"Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ra m Chandra Singh v.
Savitri Devi and Ors. (2003 (8) SCC 319).
"Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy hearted man and trap him into Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 22/25 WP-469-12(J) snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
8 The petitioner, therefore, deserves no sympathy from us. It is pertinent to note that in light of the earlier directions issued by this Court, in response to the petition filed by the petitioner on 19th June 2013, the respondents were directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the rules. The petitioner has instituted proceedings under Contempt of Court for non compliance of the said directions. We have noted that in compliance of the said directions, the Educational Inspector had issued directives to the respondent no.2 to pay the subsistence allowance and accordingly, a cheque of Rs.1,13,282/- came to be issued to the Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 ::: 23/25 WP-469-12(J) petitioner towards the subsistence allowance. It is claimed by the petitioner in the Contempt Petition that the amount was deficit by Rs.9,15,623/- calculating the subsistence allowance from 15th June 2011 till the date of retirement i.e. 28 th February 2014. However, the said amount has not been paid but what has been paid to the petitioner is an amount of Rs.1,13,282/- (an amount of Rs.74,602/- + Rs.38,680/-) which came to be deposited in his account. Since we are convinced that the petitioner is not entitled for any subsistence allowance and in fact by the impugned order dated 14th June 2011, the services of the petitioner itself were put to an end being terminated in light of the fraud being revealed and on the directions and instructions of the Education Inspector, the petitioner is not entitled for any subsistence allowance. The directions issued by this Hon'ble Court to pay the subsistence allowance on 19 th June 2013, no longer subsists in view of the Notice of Motion being filed by the management being allowed by this Court and Writ Petition No.469 of 2012 being restored to its file.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 :::
24/25 WP-469-12(J)
We have therefore, heard the Writ Petition in presence of respondent nos.1 and 2 and have arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioner's services came to be terminated by the impugned order dated 14th June 2011 on account of the fraud being played by him. We are of the clear opinion that the order passed by the respondents does not suffer from any legal infirmity, not in the least from the non- observance of the principles of natural justice. The said order is upheld since the services of the petitioner are put to an end by the said order. Since the petitioner has already been paid certain amount towards subsistence allowance, in view of the subsisting directions of this Court, we do not intend to recover the said amount from the petitioner. However, we direct that the respondents are no longer liable to disburse any further amount towards subsistence allowance in terms of the said directions issued by this Court. The said amount be adjusted towards any dues to be settled treating the petitioner to have been terminated from service with effect from 14th June 2011.
Tilak
::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 :::
25/25 WP-469-12(J)
9 Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner alleging
disobedience of the order dated 19th June 2013 passed in Writ Petition No.469/12 by which the respondent nos.3 and 4 were directed to ensure that the respondent nos.1 and 2 pay the petitioner the subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. In view of the fact that the said order dated 19 th June 2013 has been recalled in view of Notice of Motion filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the writ petition no.469/12 being restored, the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner does not deserve any consideration. Further, as regards the compliances made in furtherance of the order dated 19th June 2013, we have already issued direction in the foregoing paragraph.
In light of the aforesaid reasoning, facts and circumstances, the writ petition as well as Contempt Petition No.57 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Tilak ::: Uploaded on - 27/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2018 01:31:55 :::