SHRI. MOHITE SHANKAR DAGADUversusINDAPUR VIBHAG SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ORS

                                                                           903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10868 OF 2014

                      Shri. Mohite Shankar Dagadu
                      Age: 47 Years, Occu: Nil,

NAVNATH               R/at Post Talashet, (Indapur) Tal
SITARAM               Mangaon,Dist. Raigad.
WAGHMARE                                                                  ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH               1. Indapur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak
SITARAM
WAGHMARE              Mandal, At Post Talashet (Indapur) Tal
Date: 2026.09.10
18:54:43 +0530        Mangaon, Dist. Raigad Pin- 402112
                      (Through its President)

                      2. The Headmaster,
                      Navjeevan Vidya Mandir,
                      At Post Talashet (Indapur) Tal. Mangaon,
                      Dist Raigad Pin- 402112.

                      3. The Education Officer, Secondary Section,
                      Zilla Parishad Raigad, Alibag, Dist. Raigad.

                      4. State of Maharashtra,
                      Dept. of School Education Mantralaya
                                                                        ...Respondents
                      Mumbai (Through its Secretary)
                                                           ****
                      Ms. Kumud Bhatia for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w Prabhanjan Gujar a/w Padmanabh Sangle for the
                      Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. Savina Crasto AGP, for the Respondent/State..
                                                           ****
                                                   CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                    DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                      ORAL JUDGMENT :

                      1.      Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

                      2.      Invoking   Article   227    of   the   Constitution      of     India,   the
                      Petitioner/Employee is challenging the order dated 07.03.2014 passed by the



                      Navnath Waghmare                                                           1
                                                     903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, at Pune (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal
No. 42 of 2009. By the said impugned order, the appeal filed by the Petitioner
challenging termination order dated 02.12.2008 is dismissed.

                                  BRIEF BACKGROUND

3.      The Petitioner filed the said appeal under section 9 of Maharashtra
Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
and Rules, 1981 made thereunder ('the said Act’ and ‘the said Rules’ for short)
contending inter alia as under:

        That he was appointed as Junior Clerk on 28.09.1991 on a clear and
permanent vacancy. That he got promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in June,
1993. That no memos were issued to him during his service till March, 2006,
when the management changed and it was taken over by the new Secretary of
Respondent No.1-Management. That another junior clerk working with the
institution had good relations with the new Secretary and therefore in the
year 2006, dispute was raised for the first time about seniority of the
Petitioner. That Petitioner was called to the meeting of the School Committee
in February, 2007 and certain allegations were made, which were denied by
him. Correspondence ensued thereafter between the Institution                   and the
education authorities. Explanation was called from the Petitioner, which was
given. The explanation offered by the Petitioner was not found satisfactory
and by letter dated 20.06.2008, the Petitioner was put under suspension,
resulting into legal notices by the Petitioner. On 17.07.2008, the Management
issued a letter to Petitioner informing that Inquiry Committee is being formed
and called upon the Petitioner to inform his nominee. On 28.07.2008, the
Petitioner informed his nominee as one Mr. M.R. Kadam. On 01.08.2008,
Inquiry Committee was constituted and Petitioner was called upon to remain
present before the Inquiry Committee. The Petitioner denied all allegations.
After report and recommendations by the Inquiry committee, the Petitioner
was terminated. Then the Petitioner filed said appeal challenging the
termination.


Navnath Waghmare                                                           2
                                                      903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



4.      The Respondent- Management filed its written statement contending
inter alia as under.

        That Petitioner was never appointed in 1991. That Petitioner had
prepared false record and fabricated documents. That case of working as
senior clerk from June 1993 was denied. That the Petitioner has been given
sufficient notices and has been supplied necessary documents, who has
participated actively in the Inquiry Committee meetings. That the Petitioner
and his nominee both have participated in the inquiry. That after giving
sufficient opportunity and following procedure under Rule Nos. 36 and 37 of
the said Rules, the inquiry is conducted. That based on the findings and
recommendations of the inquiry committee, the Petitioner has been
terminated. That the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence and after hearing
both sides, has dismissed the appeal by detail reasoned order which does not
require interference.

5.      The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by impugned order dated
07.03.2014.

6.      In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present petition. It
was admitted on 20.09.2016. While admitting the petition, this Court refused
interim relief considering serious allegations against the Petitioner.

7.      It appears from the record that during pendency of the petition, the
petition was permitted to be amended and certain corrections carried out in
the impugned order were permitted to be brought on record, by way of filing
fresh copy of the impugned order. It is necessary to note at this stage itself
that the corrections made in the impugned order are not major and they only
pertain to a wrong finding recorded against point no.3. It is material to note
that though in the earlier order, Point No. 3 was held as 'No', the discussion as
well as conclusion clearly indicated otherwise. Apparently small mistakes
seem to have been corrected. Also in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 16, minor
corrections, which do not have any bearing on the findings as well as reasons,



Navnath Waghmare                                                            3
                                                     903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



are also made.

                                    SUBMISSIONS

8.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted as under.

8.1.    That the Petitioner has not fabricated any documents as alleged. That
he has been acquitted under order dated 12.06.2023 from the criminal
charges in Regular Criminal Case No. 48/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Mangaon (Court No.2) which were simultaneously pressed
against him. That he has been acquitted of offences punishable under
Sections 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

8.2.    That the Petitioner has been made a scapegoat because of the change
in the Management.

8.3.    Typed and photocopies of approval order are relied upon to assert that
Petitioner’s appointment is from the year 1991. That till the change of
management, there was no complaint against the Petitioner and no memos
were issued.

8.4.    That so far as service book is concerned, it is prepared by the
Headmaster and the Petitioner had no control over it and as such alleged
forgery could not have been held as proved.

8.5.    That sufficient opportunity was not given before the Inquiry Committee
to defend the case and therefore the appeal should have been allowed setting
aside the termination.

9.      On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent. Nos. 1 and 2
(Management and School) supported the impugned order contending inter
alia as under.

9.1.    That charges pressed against the Petitioner are of very serious nature
and they have been proved by following proper procedure under Rules Nos.
36 and 37 of the said Rules.



Navnath Waghmare                                                           4
                                                      903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



9.2.    That the Petitioner and his nominee have participated in the inquiry
and sufficient opportunity has been given to the Petitioner. That the Petitioner
has chosen not to lead any independent evidence. That Petitioner has not
examined himself.

9.3.    That the Tribunal has considered the documents produced on record in
detail, coming to conclusion that the applicable Rules have been meticulously
followed and the appeal has been dismissed finding that the charges are
rightly held as proved.

9.4.    That since principles of natural justice have been followed and no real
prejudice is shown by the Petitioner, no interference is required in limited
writ jurisdiction.

                             REASONS AND CONCLUSION

10.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

11.     At the outset, it is necessary to deal with the submission of the learned
Counsel for Petitioner about effect of acquittal from the criminal proceedings.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2024) 1 SCC 175
to contend that acquittal order must be held to have an effect that the alleged
Charge Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be held as proved. On the other hand, in this
regard, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Management has relied upon the
judgment of State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao 1963
SCC OnLine SC 6 to contend that the judgment of acquittal in criminal trial
cannot always be regarded as a binding precedent in a departmental inquiry
and the Court must independently assess the material on record, especially
when such exercise is already done by the Tribunal.

12.     In Ram Lal (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that mere
acquittal in criminal proceedings does not confer any right upon the employee
to claim benefits including reinstatement. It is however clarified that where
charges in departmental inquiry and Criminal Court are identical and


Navnath Waghmare                                                            5
                                                         903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



evidence, witnesses and circumstances are also same and where Court in
exercise of judicial review finds that acquittal in criminal proceeding was after
full consideration of prosecution evidence, the Court can interfere with the
order passed in disciplinary action, where findings of disciplinary authority
are found to be unjust, unfair and oppressive. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
however clarified that each case depends on its own facts. Therefore, mere
acquittal will not ipso facto entitle an employee to claim benefit and the case
will have to be considered on its own facts and circumstances.

13.     In that view of the matter, it is necessary to consider the facts of this
case and the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the material
produced.

14.     The Petitioner faced following charges during the inquiry :

        Charge No.1- Forging documents to make changes in the date of his
        own appointment and creating bogus service book with forging
        signature of the Headmaster.

        Charge No. 2- Date of appointment as promoted Senior Clerk and
        producing bogus copy of Resolution dated 14.07.2005, which is not
        actually passed by managing committee in a meeting, for getting
        sanction to particular pay-scale fraudulently.

        Charge No.3- Illegally giving three increments in one year, to his own
        wife while preparing pay bills.

        Charge No.4- Preparing bogus documents relating to service of his wife
        and showing her eligible for B.Ed scale when she was entitled to D.Ed.
        scale, for getting sanction from the Education Department.

        Charge No.5 - Dishonestly misplacing service records and documents
        relating to appointment letter, correspondence with Education Officer,
        muster roll regarding service of himself and his wife.

                   Apart from these charges, there are findings of the Inquiry


Navnath Waghmare                                                               6
                                                    903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



        Committee about attempt by the Petitioner for publishing defamatory
        statements in newspapers and threatening to commit suicide to
        pressurize the Respondent-Management.

15.     It is not disputed that the Petitioner was asked to nominate his
nominee in the Inquiry Committee which was duly appointed, who has
participated in the proceedings.

16.     Perusal of the Inquiry Committee report indicates that under
recommendation No. 3, the petitioners' representative himself has clearly
accepted that the Petitioner has made illegal changes in the documents for
monetary benefit; however, in order to avoid rendering Petitioner jobless and
in the interest of his mental health, his representative recommended stoppage
of three increments.

17.     With respect to Charge No. 1, the Tribunal has considered the Minutes
of Management meeting dated 17.09.1993 and Resolution No.2 by which
Petitioner was appointed as Clerk along with other candidates. The Tribunal
has considered the attendance list reflecting name of the Petitioner along with
other candidates during interview. The other candidates who participated in
the interview along with Petitioner, have deposed before the Inquiry
Committee stating that Petitioner was present with them for the interview of
‘Junior Clerk’. Tribunal has also considered muster roll of 1993. The Tribunal
has considered verified entries of the monthly salary statement revealing that
Petitioner did not get salary from September 1991 to September 1993 and his
salary started from September 1993. The Tribunal has therefore found that as
per the record, the Petitioner was not appointed in September 1991.
Photocopies produced by the Petitioner are also considered by the tribunal.
The Tribunal has held that on minute verification of the copies produced, even
to the naked eyes, it appears that wherever year 1991 is written, some other
numeric was already written which has been scratched and year 1991 is
overwritten. The Tribunal has even held that the changes in size as well as
writing type of the numerics appear to support overwriting. The Tribunal has


Navnath Waghmare                                                          7
                                                     903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



scrutinized the service book and has held that there are clear indications of
changes in every year of the dates. Even in the service book, differences in
numeric size and writing type has been found to be scratched and thereafter
numerics are found to be written. Based on such appreciation of evidence, the
Tribunal has confirmed the finding on Charge No. 1.

18.     So far as Charge No. 2 is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the
Resolution dated 14.07.2005 which is found to be a letter without any
outward number on it. The Tribunal has considered applicable Rule of 12
years of service and the said copy of resolution has been disbelieved. The
Tribunal has held that there is no proposal found to have been passed or
sanctioned regarding fixation of pay scale in respect of the service of
Petitioner. Based on such material, the finding on Charge No.2 has been
confirmed.

19.      So far as Charge No.3 is concerned, the Tribunal has clearly recorded
that the scales stated in the salary statement of petitioner's wife with yearly
increment are not even denied by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not denied
that he was preparing salary bills for the concerned period and extra amount
has been paid to his wife. His only defence is that ‘by mistake and
inadvertence’ extra amount has been paid to his wife. Such self-suiting
convenient stand has been rightly rejected. It is recorded that Petitioner's wife
admitted in her deposition that she has received excess amount which she is
ready to pay back. Therefore, the finding on Charge No.3 is also rightly
confirmed by the Tribunal.

20.     So far as Charge No. 4 is concerned, the Tribunal has considered that
the Petitioner in his own handwriting prepared proposal for fixation of pay
scale to his wife and sent it to the concerned Education Officer. The Tribunal
has also held that the educational qualification of Petitioner's wife is shown
B.com, B.P. Ed. It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
Respondent/Management that the educational qualification of Petitioner's
wife will entitle her for ‘only D.Ed scale’, but B.Ed scale was paid. The


Navnath Waghmare                                                           8
                                                       903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



Tribunal has also found that there are some changes made in the years which
fact has been admitted by Petitioner's wife. It is also found that when she was
admitted as assistant teacher, she was appointed on D.Ed scale. In the teeth of
such material, the finding on Charge No. 4 has been confirmed.

21.     So far as last Charge No. 5 is concerned, The Tribunal has considered
the deposition of Headmasters at the relevant time, Mr. Sapkal and R.B.
Chavan who have deposed that the work of salary statement of employees,
personal proposals, salary fixation and other works relating to the documents
was being discharged by the Petitioner himself. Petitioner and her wife's
muster roll from 01.08.1990 to 31.06.1992 and outward register for the year
1991 was not found.

22.     The argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner that head master
and higher authorities knew everything will not ipso facto render an illegal
act pardonable. May be the earlier management was complacent in the act.

23.     In the Inquiry Committee report, there is reference that committee has
considered newspaper reports in Dainik Sagar, Dainik Raigad Times and
Dainik Raigad Nagari along with legal notices and threat of self-immolation
which has been considered as amounting to misconduct.

24.     In the teeth of aforesaid material, the Inquiry Committee has found all
the charges to be proved and has clearly recommended termination of the
Petitioner, by majority. It has resulted in the order of termination.

25.     Even on one charge being proved, the order of termination can be
justified. In the present case, there are as many as 5 charges proved, out of
which, for two charges, the judgment of acquittal has been relied upon. It is
material to note that the order of acquittal was not in existence when the
Tribunal decided the appeal. However, in the present case, it is not found that
the order passed by the disciplinary Authority or its findings, duly confirmed
by the Tribunal are either unjust, unfair or oppressive. In that view of the
matter, the acquittal of the Petitioner from the criminal offences per se, would


Navnath Waghmare                                                             9
                                                       903-WP-10868-2014 C2.doc



not help the Petitioner in the peculiar facts narrated above in detail.

26.      As held in State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. K. S. Vishwanath (2022) 15
SCC 190, and in S. Sree Rama Rao (Supra), this Court, in writ jurisdiction, is
not expected to sit as a Court of appeal over the Tribunal order or findings of
inquiry committee by review of evidence, unless principles of natural justice
are violated.

27.      The Management is found to have followed the applicable Rules while
conducting inquiry. It is categorically held that in Paragraph No. 38 of the
impugned order that the Petitioner was given fair and reasonable opportunity
to submit his case and lead evidence. However, the Petitioner himself refused
and denied an opportunity and on being asked what he wants to submit, he
has simply replied that ‘he does not want to say anything, but he will say at
the right place’. The Petitioner has also refused to depose anything. In such
circumstances, no real prejudice is found to have been caused to the Petitioner
during the inquiry proceedings.

28.      Overall, this is not a fit case to interfere. The tribunal has taken most
probable view based on the material available on the record. No perversity is
found.

29.      Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No orders as
to costs.

30.      All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed QR
verifiable copy of this order.



                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                             10