Bombay High Court
Avatar Mehar Baba Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla ... on 10 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5715
1 wp1036.23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2023
1. Avatar Mehar Baba Shikshan Sanstha,
Hinganghat, through its Secretary,
C/o Shri Praful Madhukarrao Khode,
Swami Vivekanad Colony, New Yashwant
Nagar, Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat,
District Wardha.
2. Headmaster, Swargiya Indira Gandhi
Vidyalaya & Kanistha Mahavidyalaya,
Hinganghat Tahsil Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ....PETITIONERS
(org. respondents)
...V E R S U S...
1. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha,
Tahsil and District Wardha.
2. Rakesh Dhanraji Telgange,
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service,
R/o Quarter No.10, Government Hospital
Hinganghat, Tahsil Hinganghat,
District Wardha. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri S.B. Bissa, A.G.P. for respondent no.1.
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent no.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
RESERVED ON : 16.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT:
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally 2 wp1036.23.odt with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur (for short, "Tribunal") in Appeal No.STC 06/2021 whereby oral Termination Order dated 26.10.2017 was quashed and set aside and the petitioners were directed to reinstate respondent no.2 within 30 days with continuity and full backwages from 05.04.2018 till his reinstatement.
3. It is the case of respondent no.2 that, pursuant to the advertisement for filling the post of Assistant Teacher he was selected after following the prescribed procedure and vide appointment order dated 27.06.2011 he was appointed. After probation he was continued in service and thereafter, vide approval order dated 18.10.2013 issued by respondent No.1 - Education Officer (for short, "Education Officer"), he acquired the status of permanent employee. According to respondent no.2, he was demanded amount of ₹5 lakhs from the petitioners and when he failed to fulfill this demand, he was prevented from signing the Muster Roll from 26.10.2017 and his services were illegally orally terminated by the petitioners. He made various complaints to the Education Officer in this regard but all of it went in vain.
3 wp1036.23.odt Therefore, respondent no.2 filed the Appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the petitioners filed written statement before the Tribunal inter alia contending that respondent no.2 attended the school till 09.11.2017 and thereafter he did not show up. A copy of Muster Roll signed by respondent no.2 till 09.11.2017 was placed on record. Thus, it is the case of the petitioners that after 09.11.2017 respondent no.2 did not show up in the school. Hence, they sought rejection of the Appeal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record held that not even a single document is produced by the petitioners to show that any show-cause notice was issued to respondent no.2 alleging his absenteeism and asking him to join. Thereby, discarded the affidavits filed by other teachers who were under the control and management of the petitioners stating that respondent no. 2 was abstained from 09.11.2017, and accordingly, it is held that, the petitioners has orally terminated respondent no.2 from 26.10.2017. Hence, by impugned order the Appeal of respondent no.2 came to be allowed with the direction to reinstate respondent no.2 within 30 days with full back wages.
4. Shri Mohgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that, the report by Dr. Deepti Andharmule (handwriting expert) has proved that the signature 4 wp1036.23.odt on the Muster Roll from 26.10.2017 till 09.11.2017 is of respondent no.2. Therefore, the contention of respondent no.2 that he was orally terminated on 26.10.2017 does not stand. Therefore, according to him, there is no termination of respondent no.2 by the petitioners. Alternatively, he submitted that, due to reduction in the strength of the students, the post of Assistant Teachers are reduced and therefore, the Education Officer has not sanctioned any post of Assistant Teacher for standard 9th to 10th including unaided section from year 2017-18. Therefore, in absence of any existing post of Assistant Teacher, the petitioners cannot reinstate respondent no.2. The abolition of post has natural consequences of discontinuation of service of the employee and also disentitlement of the wages. Hence, the learned counsel seeks the dismissal of the appeal filed by respondent no.2 before the Tribunal by setting aside the order passed by him.
5. Per contra, Shri Jibhkate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 vehemently submitted that respondent no.2 was prevented from joining the service from 26.10.2017 onwards. According to him, had there been absenteeism of respondent no. 2, the petitioners should have issued the notice or should have charge-sheeted him for his absenteeism. Without 5 wp1036.23.odt holding due enquiry, respondent no.2 cannot be terminated from the services. Therefore, according to him, flimsy grounds have been raised on this petition. He submitted that, if there is no post, then he can be accommodated on another post of the same school either aided or unaided.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the impugned order.
7. It appears that, the claim of respondent no.2 is that he was prevented from joining the services on 26.10.2017, and he was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll; whereas, the case of the petitioners is of absenteeism of respondent no.2 from services and that he abandoned the services. Let me state here that, even if some employee is absent, it cannot be treated as abandonment of services. By filing the Appeal before the Tribunal, respondent no.2 has come up with a case oral termination on 26.10.2017. Had he abandoned the service or remained absent from services the petitioners could have complained about his absenteeism and asked him to join the services before the Tribunal but no steps appears to have been taken by the petitioners in this regard. That apart, no action has been taken by the petitioners against 6 wp1036.23.odt respondent no.2 for his absenteeism. Therefore, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, the statement of respondent no.2 i.e. permanent employee on oath has rightly been appreciated by the Tribunal. No prudent man would abandon his permanent service without any reason. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal has rightly dealt with the defence of petitioners that, the alleged signature of respondent no.2 from 26.10.2017 till 09.11.2017 will not help the petitioners in absence of any action taken against respondent no.2 for his absenteeism. Therefore, no fault can be seen in the observations made by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to reduction in the strength of the students there is no post vacant either in aided or unaided school, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioners to reinstate respondent no.2. In that scenario, respondent no.1 - Education Officer is directed to verify the claim of the petitioners and if it is found that there is no post available to accommodate respondent no.2, he can be declared as surplus and absorbed in any other school, as per provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) 7 wp1036.23.odt Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed.
(M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Wagh