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 2026:BHC-AUG:41904-DB 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