Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11643 (BOM)

GANPAT S/O. GANAJI RAUT v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECY., SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SPORTS DEPT., MUMBAI AND OTHERS

WP/4527/2025 · 2026-09-28

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(1) 16wp4527.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4527/2025 Ganpat Ganaji Raut .Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. R. Borkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. K. H. Bhongade, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 On 27.07.2026, following order was passed: “Heard. 2. The learned AGP has tendered across the bar a copy of communication dated 27.7.2026, issued by Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur which is taken on record and marked Annexure ‘X’ for identification. He then submits that in case, within three days, the proposal is not forwarded, the Education Officer would take ex- parte decision to disburse the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner. 3. So far as question of payment of interest is concerned, we make it clear that same will have to be borne by the respondent no.3 – Management. 4. Stand over two weeks.” 2. Learned A.G.P. submits that departmental inquiry was initiated on 29.09.2024 by issuing letter to the petitioner regarding financial and administrative lapses committed by him. Details of the same have been mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No.3. 3. This fact of initiation of the departmental inquiry has been not disclosed by the petitioner. Thus the petitioner has suppressed vital fact and, therefore, is not entitled for any relief, for the person seeking equity should approach with clean hands. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 28/09/2026 18:51:32