SHRI ISHWARSING RAJENDRASING RAJPUTversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GR. MUMBAI

                                                          903-WP-11241-2022.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 11241 OF 2022
Shri. Ishwarsing Rajendrasing Rajput          ]
Age : 34 years, Occupation : Service          ]
R/o. Room No.1312, Hanuman Colony,            ]
Gali No.1, AasheleGaon, Ulhasnagar,           ]
District-Thane 421004.                        ].....Petitioner

             Versus

1.    The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai                                   ]
Near CST Railway Station, Mumbai-400001.         ]
                                                 ]
1a. The Office of Dy. Commissioner               ]
(Education)                                      ]
F/South ward, Office of B.M.C. Building,         ]
Dr. Ambedkar Road & Jagannath Bhatnakar ]
Junction, Parel, Mumbai 400012.                  ].....Respondents
                                  .....
Mr. Chadrashekhar S. Patil, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Santosh Parad, for the Respondent No.1-MCGM.

Ms. Veena Sonawane, Admin Officer, ‘N Ward, present in Court.
                              ..…
                         CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                     SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                    DATE   : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-

1.        By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing

and setting aside of the impugned order dated 14th July 2014.



Manisha                                                                   1/9
              Digitally signed by
MANISHA       MANISHA
              BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA    TALEKAR
TALEKAR       Date: 2026.09.24
              11:00:54 +0530
                                                      903-WP-11241-2022.doc


2.        By the impugned order dated 14 July 2014 passed by the

Respondent-Corporation the Petitioner was terminated from the

services. The Petitioner in this case was a teacher appointed in the

BMC school managed by Respondent No. 1-Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai. The Petitioner was appointed on 24 th June, 2009 in

Nehru Nagar Municipal Corporation Hindi School, ‘S Ward’,

Kanjurmarg, vide an Appointment Order dated 23 rd June, 2009. The

said order indicates that the order was for a period of 3 years. The

order is at ‘Exhibit A’ to the Petition.

3.        It is the case of the Petitioner that during the period of

probation, one Mr. Govind Kanojia, who was the father of the student

studying in his school, filed an F.I.R against the Petitioner under the

provisions of Sections 506(II), 323 and 354 of Indian Penal Code

(IPC) on 9th November, 2009. During pendency of the criminal case,

the Respondent commenced the preliminary inquiry against the

Petitioner on 2nd September 2011 and the charge sheet was served on

the given date upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner was suspended

from work on 1st July, 2011. The Petitioner therefore had filed a Writ

Petition in this court bearing No. 10804 of 2013, seeking revocation

of his suspension. During pendency of this Writ Petition, the

Manisha                                                               2/9
                                                       903-WP-11241-2022.doc


departmental inquiry concluded. The Inquiry Officer had found that

the Petitioner had committed grave misconduct, and therefore the

services of the Petitioner were terminated.

4.        The Petitioner had, on 4th January, 2022, withdrawn the Writ

Petition No. 10804 of 2013, which was filed by him. The Petitioner

thereafter filed the present Writ Petition.

5.        The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the action

taken on the basis of the oral information received by the

Headmistress is per se illegal. He submitted that there is

inconsistency between the version stated in the F.I.R., the version

stated by the victim, and the version stated by the other witnesses.

He argued that no Complaint was filed or produced on record to

show that the offence has been committed by the Petitioner at the

residence, he argued that the story was concocted and that the victim

was not cross-examined. He argued that there is a Criminal Revision

Application No.62 of 2016, which is filed by the Petitioner against

the order of conviction. He contended that the Petitioner had

challenged the Show Cause Notice in Writ Petition No. 10804 of

2013, during pendency of the said Writ Petition, the impugned order

was passed, and the departmental proceedings ought not to have

Manisha                                                                3/9
                                                      903-WP-11241-2022.doc


been conducted, especially in light of the fact that the Petitioner's

Writ Petition was pending in this court.

6.        The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the

other hand, strenuously objected the Petition. He submitted that the

offence is very serious in nature and that the victim was the student

of Petitioner and was studying in the 7 th standard in school. He

tendered across the Bar the judgment and order passed by the 53rd

Metropolitan Magistrates Court, Mumbai, on 7th October, 2014,

whereby the Petitioner was convicted of the offence punishable

under the provisions of Section 354, 323, 363, 506(II) of the Indian

Penal Code (IPC). He submitted that only because a revision against

the said sentence is pending would not ipso facto mean that the

conviction is stayed. He submitted that, the Petitioner was appointed

on probation basis vide order dated 23 rd June, 2009 in the school and

he had committed the offence immediately within 6 months thereof

i.e. on 8th November, 2009. He submitted that the Petitioner was

granted due opportunity of being heard. A full-fledged departmental

inquiry was conducted and upon conclusion of the said inquiry, the

Petitioner was terminated from the service.




Manisha                                                               4/9
                                                        903-WP-11241-2022.doc


7.        He laid much stress on the order of termination, which was

passed on 14th July, 2014 and that the present Writ Petition filed on

26th August, 2022. He submitted that there was a gross delay in filing

the Writ Petition and this Petition deserves to be quashed and set

aside only on this ground.

8.        Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties

and perused the documents on record. The Petitioner was appointed

as a teacher in a Municipal School run by Respondent No.1. The

appointment was made on 23rd June, 2009 and immediately within a

period of 6 months, the Petitioner committed the offence on 8 th

November, 2009. The Petitioner was appointed on probation basis.

The allegations were very serious in nature, inasmuch as the offence

is alleged to have been committed against the victim who happened

to be his student. We have perused the order passed by the Trial

Court in proceedings bearing No. 654/PW/2009 dated 7 th October,

2014. The observations made in the said judgment while convicting

the Petitioner shows how serious the offence is. We are however not

swayed away by the findings of the Criminal Court.

9.        The Petitioner was granted a full-fledged hearing while the

departmental inquiry was conducted. It is not the case of the

Manisha                                                                 5/9
                                                       903-WP-11241-2022.doc


Petitioner that there was any breach of Principles of Natural Justice.

The Petitioner was given a Show Cause Notice, which was challenged

by him by filing a Writ Petition No. 10804 of 2013. The Petitioner

could not obtain any relief till the year 2022 and later withdrew the

Petition on the ground that, during the pendency of the Petition, the

services of the Petitioner were terminated. The impugned order

terminating the services of the Petitioner was passed on 14 th July,

2014. The Petitioner, however, preferred the present Petition on 26 th

August, 2022.

10.       The reasons assigned by the Petitioner namely that, he was a

layman and was under a wrong impression that the Petition

challenging the Show Cause Notice is pending and until the same is

decided, no further or separate proceedings were required to

challenge the impugned order dated 14th July, 2014. This explanation

of the Petitioner only highlights the proposition that the Petitioner

was ignorant about the law. It is a well settled position of law that

‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’- ignorance of law is not an excuse. It is

not the contention of the Petitioner that he had no knowledge of the

passing of the order dated 14th July, 2014, which is impugned in the

present Petition. The contention that the Petitioner was having no

Manisha                                                                6/9
                                                         903-WP-11241-2022.doc


knowledge that a fresh Petition was required to be filed challenging

the impugned order dated 14 th July, 2014 cannot be accepted in law.

The Supreme Court in the Judgment of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.

Ltd. Vs. Government of U.P. and Ors.1 held as under:

          “…..Every individual is deemed to know the law of the
          land. The courts merely interpret the law and do not
          make law. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking
          appropriate steps within limitation. Therefore the
          argument that the appellant did not know the true legal
          position is not one that can be accepted in law…..”.


11.       The Petition deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of delays

and laches itself. We have also gone through the impugned order.

The reasons which are assigned in the impugned order cannot be

termed as perverse. It is the case of the Petitioner that the reasons

assigned in the Order of Departmental Inquiry were inadequate and

that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate.

12.       Fair opportunity was given to the Petitioner. It is settled law

that this Court while exercising the Writ Jurisdiction, cannot sit in

appeal over the findings of the departmental inquiry. Unless and until

it is shown that the said findings were perverse or shocking to the

conscience, this court would not substitute its view to that of the


1   (1975) 4 Supreme Court Cases 378

Manisha                                                                  7/9
                                                         903-WP-11241-2022.doc


Inquiry Committee.The Supreme Court in the Judgment of State of

Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sree Rama Rao2 held as under:

      “…..The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding
      under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal
      over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
      enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to
      determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
      competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure
      prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
      justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence,
      which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
      enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably
      support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty
      of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a
      petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the
      evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the
      evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere
      where the departmental authorities have held the
      proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
      inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation
      of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or
      where the authorities have disabled themselves from
      reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous
      to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing
      themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or
      where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly
      arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
      ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar
      grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the
      enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts
      and if there be some legal evidence on which their
      findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that
      evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be
      canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ
      under Article 226 of the Constitution…..”.


2   1963 SCC OnLine SC 6

Manisha                                                                  8/9
                                                        903-WP-11241-2022.doc


13.       In this view of the matter, this Court does not find it fit to

exercise its jurisdiction in favor of the Petitioner. For the reasons

mentioned above, the Writ Petition No.11241 of 2022 is dismissed.




(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                              (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                                 9/9