Bombay High Court

BABU ABHIMAN BANSODEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the punishment of permanently withholding two increments was excessive and set it aside, imposing a reduced penalty of withholding one increment for three years.

Summary

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher who was acting as In‑charge Headmaster in a Zilla Parishad school, was disciplined for allegedly failing to inform authorities that a colleague, Assistant Teacher Gurav, had been detained for more than 48 hours under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and for helping pay the colleague's dues. The disciplinary authority imposed the severe penalty of permanently withholding two annual increments and treating the period of the colleague's detention as a suspension. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that there was no specific finding that he knew of his duty to report the detention or that he intentionally concealed it, and that similar action was not taken against other teachers. The High Court examined Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, which defines suspension for detention exceeding 48 hours, and found the evidence insufficient to justify the harsh punishment. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the petition, quashed the permanent withholding of two increments, and substituted a reduced penalty of withholding one increment for three years.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner was liable for disciplinary action for not informing authorities about a co‑employee's detention exceeding 48 hours.
Whether the petitioner’s financial assistance to the detained colleague constitutes misconduct warranting the imposed punishment.
Whether the punishment of permanently withholding two increments and treating the detention period as suspension is proportionate and legally justified.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 — s. Rule 3
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 138

Subjects

disciplinary action
public service
suspension
increment withholding
humanitarian assistance
procedural fairness
Zilla Parishad
Section 138
punishment reduction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41904-DB


                   IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           904 WRIT PETITION NO. 2628 OF 2022

                                 Babu Abhiman Bansode
                                         VERSUS
                           The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                             ...
                      Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Doke Kishor R
                   AGP for Respondents No.1 to 3 - State: Mr. S. K. Shirse
                   Advocate for Respondents No.4 to 6: Mr. S. D. Kaldate
                                             ...

                                    CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                    Dated      : September 09, 2026

           ORAL ORDER :

           1.   The present petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated

           12.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in

           Appeal No. 99 of 2020, thereby confirming the order dated 13.07.2020

           passed in File No.ftim@f’k{k.k@vkLFkk&9@dkfo 1200&04@2020 by the Chief

           Executive     Officer,   Zilla   Parishad,         Osmanabad,   imposing   the

           punishment of withholding two increments in perpetuity upon the

           petitioner and treating the suspension period as a period spent under

           suspension.



           2.   The petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in a

           Zilla Parishad school. He was working as In-charge Headmaster in the

           school from the year 2015. One Assistant Teacher, namely, Mr. Gurav,

           was arrested by the police authorities in relation to an offence under

           Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation against


                                                Page 1 of 5
                                                            904 WP 2628-2022



the petitioner is that while he was working as Assistant Teacher and

was aware of the imprisonment of Assistant Teacher Mr. Gurav, he

did not apprise the authorities about the said imprisonment.



3.    On this ground, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the

petitioner. In his reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner stated that

on 19.08.2018, Assistant Teacher Mr. Gurav was brought to the Court

by the police authorities, and on the said date, the judgment in

relation to the offence registered against Mr. Gurav under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was to be delivered. It is

stated that there was apprehension that Mr. Gurav would be

convicted and imprisoned. The petitioner stated that the wife of the

said teacher had requested assistance to avoid the situation. It is

stated in the reply that, accordingly, the teachers in the school

contributed the amount and arranged for payment of the dues of Mr.

Gurav, which were the subject matter of the prosecution against him

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.



4.    The charges against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry

are that, despite being aware of Mr. Gurav being behind bars for a

period of more than 48 hours, the petitioner did not inform the

authorities about the same. Further, he extended financial assistance

to Mr. Gurav in relation to the criminal case against him. The

allegation, in fact, is that the petitioner, acting as In-charge

                                Page 2 of 5
                                                           904 WP 2628-2022



Headmaster of the school, shielded Mr. Gurav by suppressing the

fact of his imprisonment.



5.    Perusal of the enquiry report will indicate that the specific

period for which Mr. Gurav was behind bars is not mentioned. There

is no finding that Mr. Gurav was behind bars from a particular date to

a particular date, and that the petitioner was aware of the said fact.

Likewise, there is no finding in the enquiry report that the petitioner

was aware of his duty to apprise the authorities about Mr. Gurav

being behind bars for a period exceeding 48 hours.



6.    Perusal of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, indicates that if a Zilla

Parishad employee is detained in custody, whether on a criminal

charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours, he shall be

deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from the

date of detention by an order of the appointing authority, and shall

remain under suspension until further orders.



7.    The petitioner was working as In-charge Headmaster at the

relevant time. Although it is stated that, in his attempt to shield Mr.

Gurav, he did not apprise the authorities about his detention for a

period exceeding 48 hours, there is no specific finding that the

petitioner was aware of his obligation to apprise the authorities of

                                Page 3 of 5
                                                                   904 WP 2628-2022



the said fact, or that he was aware of the consequence of a Zilla

Parishad employee being behind bars for a period exceeding 48

hours.



8.    In such circumstances, it is also pertinent to state that similar

action has not been taken against the other teachers in the school.

Action has been taken against the petitioner since he was holding

charge of Headmaster at the relevant time, although substantively

he was only an Assistant Teacher.



9.    In that view of the matter, and in the considered opinion of this

Court, the authorities ought to have taken a liberal view of the

matter, having regard to the fact that the petitioner extended

financial help to a co-employee on humanitarian considerations

along with other teachers in the school, and that there is no material

to infer that the petitioner was aware of his responsibility to apprise

the authorities about the custody of Mr. Gurav for a period exceeding

48 hours and yet he purposefully avoided to do so. In the considered

opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be subserved by

reducing the punishment imposed appropriately.



10.   In the result, the petition is partly allowed.



11.   The   order   dated   12.07.2021         passed   by   the    Additional

                                 Page 4 of 5
                                                                        904 WP 2628-2022



Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Appeal No. 99 of 2020, thereby

confirming     the   order   dated      13.07.2020       passed    in      File    No.

No.ftim@f’k{k.k@vkLFkk&9@dkfo 1200&04@2020 by the Chief Executive

Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, is quashed and set aside to the

extent of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner.



12.      The   punishment    of   withholding      two    annual    increments

permanently and treating the suspension period as a period spent

under suspension is quashed and set aside. Instead, the punishment

of withholding one increment for a period of three years is imposed.




                                             ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                     Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…