Yuvraj Ramesh Lingayat … v. The State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others
Case Details
937-WP-9783-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 937 WRIT PETITION NO. 9783 OF 2024 Yuvraj Ramesh Lingayat ….Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And Others …..Respondents ….. Mr. S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the Respondent No.1 – State Mr. S. R. Dheple h/f Mr. P. R. Nangare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 ….. CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : 10.07.2025 PER COURT : . 2. Heard. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14/08/2024 terminating the Petitioner’s services as Assistant Teacher [Graduate Teacher] with Zilla Parishad. The order impugned herein has been passed by Respondent No.2 – Chief Executive Ofcer [CEO] on the ground that a crime for the ofences punishables under Sections 323, 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’] to have been registered against him and the concerned Superintendent of Police has issued a Character Certificate / Police Clearance adverse to the case of the Petitioner. 1 937-WP-9783-2024.odt 3. The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher [Graduate Teacher] pursuant to the order dated 13/03/2024. Clause – 12 of the appointment order reads thus : “12½ mesnokjkph use.kwd iksyhl [kkR;kekQZr mesnokjkP;k pkfj«; o iqoZ pkfj«; izek.ki= iMrkG.kh vgokykP;k vVhoj dsyh vkgs- iMrkG.kh vgokykr iksyhl [kkR;kdMwu izfrdwy ‘ksjk vkY;kl R;kauk uksdjhrwu deh dj.;kr ;sbZy- ;kckcr xV f’k{k.kkf/kdkjh ;kauh iksyhl [kkR;kdMs i= O;ogkj d#u vgoky izkIr d#u ?;kok- izfrdwy ‘ksjk vkY;kl iq<hy dk;ZokghlkBh ftYgk ifj”knsdMs rkRdG izLrko ikBfo.;kr ;kok-” 4. Respondent No.3 - Block Education Ofcer received an adverse report from the concerned Police Station and, therefore, Respondent No.2 - CEO terminated the Petitioner from service. 5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner would submit that a false F.I.R has been registered against the Petitioner and his family members out of dispute between the two families. He would further submit that close reading of the F.I.R would indicate that the Petitioner could not be attributed with a crime punishable under Section 294 of I.P.C. The said crime is said to have been committed by his father. According to him, if the rest of the ofences are considered even to be true, are not so serious, so as to terminate the Petitioner from service. He relied on the Government Resolution dated 26/08/2024 to submit that the Government took a policy decision as to what kind of ofences to be considered serious for considering a candidate ineligible for appointment or continuation in service. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the authorities concerned have given a go-by to the basic principle of presumption of innocence under the criminal jurisprudence. He, therefore, urges for allowing the petition. 6. The learned Advocate for the Respondents – Zilla Parishad supports the order impugned herein. He would submit that the Petitioner did not disclose the crime to have been registered against him when he applied for the post. According to him, close reading of 2 937-WP-9783-2024.odt the F.I.R would indicate the Petitioner to have been equally involved in the crime in question along with his other family members. As of now, the allegations in the F.I.R are sufcient to attribute him to be of character adverse for his continuation in service. He, therefore, urges for dismissal of the petition. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced. Perused the documents on record. 8. While applying for the post in response to the advertisement, it appears that, there was no clause, in the application, relating to pendency or registration of any crime against the Applicant. The aforesaid Clause-12 in the advertisement suggests that if the police report is found to be adverse, the person appointed to the post, would be liable to be terminated from the service. It is true that the Petitioner accepted the service on the said terms and conditions. The question is whether a mere registration of a crime that too for ofences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 294 read with Section 34 of I.P.C would entail the Respondent - Zilla Parishad to disqualify the Petitioner from the appointment or to be continued in service. 9. Presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of the criminal jurisprudence. The State Government vide Government Resolution 26/08/2014 has illustratively categorized certain ofences under the I.P.C and even under special statutes as well entailing it either to disqualify a candidate from appointment even on registration of a crime. Close reading of schedule ‘A’ to the said Government Resolution would disclose that pendency of crime for ofence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Sections either 325 or 326 of I.P.C has been considered to be a disqualification for appointment. Close reading of the further list would indicate that the ofences enlisted therein are 3 937-WP-9783-2024.odt serious and aggravated as well. For better appreciation and ready reference, we reproduce Schedule - ‘A’ to the Government Resolution dated 26/08/2014 : ससंबसंधधित उममेदववार ज्वा गगमन्हवाममय्े आररोपपी आरहरेत अशवा गगमन्हह्पी ्वादपी व अशवा गगमन्हवात अडकललेल्वा उममेदववारवावर सगमरु असललेललपी न्वा्वालल्पीन पधकक्वा को कक्वा सतरवावर असेलल तर कक्वाललवा शवासकपी् सेवेत धन्गमक्तपी देण्हत ्ेऊ न्े ्वा्वा तपशपीलल (हरपी सवर सममवावेशक ्वादपी नवाहरपी. उदवाहरर वारर ्वादपी आरहरे) (Illustrative List) पधरधश्ቖ -A Sr. No. Crime Head Candidates should be rejected on following criteria अ.कक. गगमनहरवा उममेदववारवास अपवात रधवण्वाबवाबत खवाललपीलल 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Murder ममनगमष््वधि/हरकक्वा धनकष ललवागगू रवाहरतपीलल Convicted Pending Trial दोषपी पललसंधबत खलंललवा Attempt to commit murder Convicted Pending Trial खगमनवा्वा iz;Ru दोषपी Culpable homicide not amounting to murder Convicted सदोष ममवानवहरकक्े्वा iz;Ru Rape बललवाकककवार दोषपी Convicted दोषपी Kidnapping & abduction Convicted अपहरर Dacoity दरोडवा दोषपी Convicted दोषपी Preparation assembly for dacoity Convicted njksM;kP;k उदेशवाने एकत जमम े दोषपी Robbery ललगूलंममवारपी Burglary ्ोरपी/घरफोडपी Convicted दोषपी Convicted दोषपी 4 पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा -- -- 937-WP-9783-2024.odt 10 Theft ्ोरपी 11 Riots naxy Convicted दोषपी Convicted दोषपी 12 Criminal breach of trust Convicted फफौजदवारपी सवरुपवा्वा fo’okl?kkr दोषपी 13 Cheating / Forgery Convicted फसव गूक 14 Counterfeiting दोषपी Convicted ललबवाडपी/बनवावलं दसतवावेज त्वार कर े दोषपी 15 Arson ममवाललममते्पी नवासधिगमस 16 Grave Hurt गसंभपीर इजजवा/दगमखवापत 17 Dowry Death संडवाबबळपी हरगम 18 Molestation धवन्भसंग Convicted दोषपी Convicted दोषपी Convicted दोषपी Convicted दोषपी 19 Sexual Harassment Convicted ySaxhd अकक्वा्वार दोषपी 20 Cruelty by husband or relatives Convicted पतपी व कक्वाा्वा नवातेववााईकवाकडगून छळबळ दोषपी 21 Importation of girl Convicted eqyhaph तसकरपी दोषपी -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा -- -- Pending Trial पललसंधबत खलंललवा -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 10. In the present case, the F.I.R registered against the Petitioner indicate him to have assaulted the informant in furtherence of the common intention of his father and other family members. The 5 937-WP-9783-2024.odt said ofence is punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The Petitioner’s father is alleged to have abused the informant with obscene words and, therefore Section 294 has been invoked. The said ofence by no stretch of imagination could be said to have been committed by the Petitioner with the aid of Section 34 of I.P.C. For the ofences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, the Petitioner has not been attributed with, anything intimidatory or which will cause the victim to raise annoyance and cause breach of public peace. As such, the ofence registered against the Petitioner is not of such a serious nature, which invites cognizance by Respondent No.2 – CEO to terminate his service. If at all the Petitioner is convicted on trial of the said ofence, necessary consequences would follow. 10.1. For ready reference, we advert to the allegations in the F.I.R., which read thus : “ fnukad 18/10/2021 eh js[kk jes’k [kkdksjMh;k o; 47 o”ksZ O;olk;&O;kikj jk- uklxYyh dklkjh cktkj vkSjaxkckn eks- u- 9923484444- le{k iksyhl LVs’ku yk gtj ;soqu rdzkjh tckc nsrs dh] eh ojhy fBdk.kh ek>s dqVwacklg jkgrs o ysMht ysxhUl o Vi fodzh djrs o R;koj ek÷;k dqVwackpk mnjfuokZg Hkkxfors- fnukad 16/10/2021 jksth jk=h 8.30 ok- lqekjkl eh xVVk.kh fcYMhax leksj xqyeaMh ikdhZx ps ikBhekxs ysMht ysxhUl o Vi fodr vlrkauk ble ukes 1½ jes’k fyax;kr 2½ R;kpk eqyxk vkdk’k jes’k fyaxk;r mQZ vDdq o R;kph 3½ iRuh o 4½ eqyxh uko ekghr ukgh loZ jk- nkuk cktkj Nko.kh vkSjaxkckn gs ek>s toG vkys o jes’k fyaxk;r eyk Eg.kkyk dh fNuky jkaM rq /kansokyh jkaM vkgs- rq ek÷;k nqdkukleksj diMs dk fodrs vls Eg.kqu eyk okbZV okbZV f’kohxkG dsyh o ojhy lokZauh eyk gkrkpkikVkus ekjgku dsyh o [kkyh ikMqu iksVkr ykFkkcqD;kus ekjgku dsyh- ek÷;k vksjM.;kpk vkokt ,sdq.k ek>k eqyxk ukes jksghr jes’k [kkdksjMh;k] o fnid jes’k [kkdksjMh;k gs ekÖ;k toG vkys o rs HkkaM.k lksMfor vlrkauk ekÖ;k nksUgh eqykauk R;kauh f’kohxkG d#u gkrkpkiVkus ekjgk.k dsyh o eyk Eg.kkys dh rq tj ekÖ;k nqdkuk leksj ijr diMs fodzh djrkauk feGqu vkyh rj rqyk o rqÖ;k ? kjP;k yksadkuk ftos ek#u Vkdq v’kh /kedh fnyh rjh eyk okbZV okbZV f’kohxkG d#u v’’khy ‘kCn mPpk#u eyk o ekÖ;k eqykauk ekjgk.k dj.kk&;k o /kedh ns.kk&;k ojhy lokZoj dk;nsf’kj dk;Zokgh djkoh ek>k ojhy tckc ek>s lkax.ks izek.ks cjkscj lax.kdkoj VkbZi dsyk rks eyk fganhr okpqu nk[kfoyk rsk cjkscj o [kjk vkgs- le{k le{k gk tckc fnyk nk- d.kkj iksmifu eqaMs r-v- eiksmifu eqGs-” 6 937-WP-9783-2024.odt 11. The aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged two days after the incident. We do not propose to observe anything more. Sufce it to say that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the crime registered against the Petitioner did not warrant Respondent No.2 to terminate him from service. 12. In the order impugned herein, for the reasons stated herein-above, warrants interference in this writ petition. The petition therefore succeeds. The order impugned herein is set aside. Respondent No.2 – CEO shall reinstate the Petitioner in service within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of this order. 13.
Decision
Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [R.G. AVACHAT, J.] Sameer/July-2025 Signed by: Md. Sameer Q. Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 16/07/2025 14:01:30 7