Deepali Nilkhant Patil v. The Chairman Parashari Vidya Prasarak Sanstha And ORS
TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2024.07.15 17:15:50 +0530 Trupti 1 13-wp-8381--2024spk.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8381 OF 2024 Deepali Nilkhant Patil ...
Petitioner versus The Chairman, Parashari Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Mukhed and Others ...
Respondents ......
Mr.Anuj Tiwari for the Petitioner.
Ms. R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent -State. ......
CORAM:
NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE:
19 June 2024 P.C.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
The Petitioner, who was working as a Superintendent in Ashram school run by Respondent No.1, is placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 29 April 2024.
3.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner firstly submitted that neither any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was given prior to placing the Petitioner under suspension. There is no merit in this submission. The Petitioner is placed under suspension This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of the order dated 10 July 2024
Trupti 2 13-wp-8381--2024spk.doc pursuant to a disciplinary inquiry. Suspension order is dated 29 April 2024 in which the allegations are made against the Petitioner that the Petitioner has failed to protect the girl students in the school and was negligent in the duties. If, in these circumstances, the Respondent -Management has found it necessary that during the inquiry to keep the Petitioner away from teaching the students, it cannot be considered as illegal or perverse. The learned Counsel submitted that prior to placing the Petitioner under suspension, no permission of the Education Officer is required as envisaged under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 was taken. It is not pointed out as to how this particular Rule is applicable to the Petitioner's case, when the Petitioner is working in a Ashram School.
4.
In these circumstances, keeping in mind the limited scope of scrutiny under writ jurisdiction against the orders of suspension, the writ petition is rejected.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of the order dated 10 July 2024