Dinesh Manik Suryavanshi v. The Education Officer

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (b) and (c), as under:- (b) That by appropriate Writ, order or directions of this Hon'ble Court, impugned order dated 17th December 2021 passed by the Respondent, Education Officer thereby terminating the services of Petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak deserves to be quashed and set aside;

(c) That by appropriate Writ, order or directions of this

Hon'ble Court, the Respondent, Education Officer may be directed to reinstate the Petitioner in services of Brihanmumbai, Mahanagar Palika School as Shikshan Sevak forthwith along with continuity in service and full back wages.”

3. The Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak by order dated 23rd January, 2020 in the school operated by the Education Department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, Mumbai. He joined duties on 31st January, 2020 in the school, “Maharashtra Housing Board English School P/N Ward”. He tendered his caste validity certificate.

4. The Police clearance certificate indicated a criminal Note: This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 6.02.2025. 2 of 7 case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in connection with C.R. No.I - 333 of 2017. However, the Court of Criminal Jurisdiction delivered a judgment of acquittal in R.C.C. No.767 of 2017, on 30th October, 2021. The Education Officer, vide the impugned order dated 12th April, 2022, terminated the services of the Petitioner based on the Police verification report, despite having the knowledge of his acquittal.

5. The said Education Officer has filed an affidavit-inreply contending in paragraph nos.9, 10, 11 and 12, as under:- “9) Further it is submitted that, during the period when the order of termination of candidates subject to the clause 7 of appointment order was pending for the signature of the Education Officer, after all procedures the present Petitioner filed the order and judgment of his acquittal in the criminal case of RCC 767/2017 dated 30/10/2021. Therefore the Education Officer kept pending the termination of the present petitioner considering order and judgment filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the present petitioner filed the certified copy of the judgment dated 19/01/2022.

10) That thereafter on 01/02/2022 the documents of the petitioner has been sent for opinion of Law Officer to overview the remarks of police clearance certificate and the judgment dated 30/10/2021 in respect of Circular No. MPM/2/1998 dated 22/05/2017 about character verification for appointment in service and to decide the termination of the petitioner. The deputy law officer (criminal) opined to sent it to the Chief Personnel Officer for the feedback about termination. Note: This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 6.02.2025. 3 of 7 The Joint Chief Personnel Officer give opinion that the issue of termination to be decided at department level according to the circulars issued from time to time in respect of the character verification and reports. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-'D' is the copy of circular No. MPM/2/1998 dated 22/05/2017.

11) That, therefore following all this procedure the appointment of present petitioner as a Shikshan Sewak was terminated on the ground that the police clearance certificate of petitioner received in given time frame reflected the remarks of the criminal case pendency which was subject to clause 7 of the appointment order as stated in order dated 23.01.2020 and the order of termination also received by petitioner dated 12/04/2022.

12) That it is also worthwhile to note that, the present petitioner again applied to the Shikshan Sewak post by advertisement dated 09/02/2024 and selected and appointed as a Shikshan Sewak vide appointment no. EOR/OD/appointment/103 dated 12/08/2024. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-'E' is the copy of appointment order No.EOR/OD/appointment/103 dated 12/08/2024.”

6. It is, thus,obvious that the Education Officer was aware of the judgment of acquittal dated 30th October, 2021 and yet, he terminated the services of the Petitioner, vide order dated 12th April,

2022. It is inconsequential that the Petitioner once again made an attempt for seeking employment pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th February, 2024, got selected and was appointed as Shikshan Sevak, vide order dated 12th August, 2024. Note: This order is corrected vide speaking to minutes of order dated 6.02.2025. 4 of 7

7. This is an open and shut case. The foundational reason for terminating the Petitioner was the pendency of the criminal case. Ironically, though the Petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated 30th December, 2021, the Education Officer has terminated his services on 12th April, 2022.

8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has taken instructions and submits that in order to render a ‘quietus’ to the litigation between the parties, though the Petitioner is entitled for full back-wages in view of the glaring circumstances, he is willing to accept only 50% back-wages and forego 50%. He, however, clarifies that if the Corporation decides to further litigate on this point, his prayer for full back-wages would be revived. We accept the said statement.

9. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that he has not instructions to accept the concession made by the Petitioner. He is directed to oppose the prayer of back-wages.