IMPORTANT POINT
The findings given by some of the members of the Inquiry Committee after expiry of the mandatory period of ten days as specified by Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, cannot be binding on the Management while deciding the question of taking action against the delinquent employee.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981—Rule 37(6)—Termination of service—Findings given by two members of Inquiry Committee after expiry of mandatory period of ten days specified in Rule 37(6) of the Rules—Not binding on Management—Charges of harassment, misbehaviour with girl students, inefficiency, in-subordination and corruption specified against respondent 2—Inquiry Committee consisting of three members was constituted—Upon conclusion of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37(4) of the Rules, Inquiry Committee sent to respondent 2 the summary proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses for him to submit his explanation within 7 days—Respondent 2 failed to submit his explanation to the Inquiry Committee—Management nominee and convenor of the Inquiry Committee finding all charges proved against respondent 2, sent his report and findings to the Management within period of 10 days which is mandatory period—Other two members of the Inquiry Committee had not submitted their findings within the period of 10 days mandated by Rule 37(6) of the Rules—Appellant Management issued order terminating service of respondent 2—Findings of other two members of the Inquiry Committee exonerating respondent 2 received by the Management after the mandatory period of 10 days—However, Tribunal directed Management to reinstate respondent 2 on ground that two of the three members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated respondent 2—Whether Management was bound to accept the findings of the members given after the expiry of the mandatory period of ten days—(No)—Order of reinstatement of respondent 2 set aside.
       Held : Rule 37(6), which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three members, as already noticed, only one member nominated by the Management has submitted his Inquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37(6) and admittedly, the other two members nominated by the employee and an independent member have not submitted their report within the time prescribed under Rule 37 (6). However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, though noticed that the two members out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said findings by the two members of the committee were submitted after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). In our opinion, the report submitted by individual members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of three members are appointed to inquire into a particular matter, all the three should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. Since the report is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back wages. Since the reinstatement and back wages now ordered are quite contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 37 (6), we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, and learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench of the High Court. In addition, we also set aside the order passed by the Management based on the report submitted by the single member of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules. (Para 8)
       We direct the Management of the School to constitute the Committee in accordance with sub-Rules (i) (ii) & (iii) of Rule 36(2)(a) to go into the matter afresh. The respondent No. 2, the employee, will be now treated under suspension and he will be entitled to the subsistence allowance as per rules with effect from the date of termination of his services. The inquiry shall be completed by the Committee within a period of six months from the date of their nomination/constitution.(Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No.66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. A charge-sheet was served on the delinquent employee. Seven charges were leveled against him. Apart from the charge of harassment and misbehaviour with girl students, other charges of inefficiency, in-subordination and corruption were also specified against respondent no. 2, namely, Subhash Lingawar. A Inquiry Committee consisting of three members was constituted, which consisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar (Nominated by the Management), Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar (Deliquent’s representative) and Mrs. V.S. Ramteke (State Awardee teacher). Respondent no. 2 submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. The inquiry was initiated and the first meeting was held on 10.10.1998. During the pendency of the inquiry, respondent no.2 was not suspended and he continued to attend to his duties. In the inquiry proceedings, it was found that the respondent no. 2 was being non-cooperative, two members of the Inquiry Committee, i.e. Nominee of respondent no. 2 and the State Awardee teacher were trying to stall the proceedings. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37 (4) of the Rules, the Inquiry Committee sent to respondent no.2 the summary proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses for him to submit his explanation within 7 days under Rule 37 (5). Thus, respondent no.2 had time of 7 days till 28.2.2000 to submit his explanation. The respondent no.2 failed to submit his explanation to the Inquiry Committee. Thus, under Rule 37 (6), the Inquiry Committee was required to communicate its findings to the Management within 10 days. The requirement was mandatory and the period of 10 days expired on 9.3.2000. Mr. P.S. Donadkar, the management nominee and the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee sent his report and findings to the Management. In this report, the aforesaid Member and Convenor of the Inquiry Committee found all charges proved against respondent no.2 and having been found guilty, punishment of termination from service was recommended against respondent no.2. It was also recorded in the aforesaid report and findings that the other two members of the Inquiry Committee had not submitted their findings and that during the course of inquiry they had sought to favour respondent no.2 and that their attitude was not appropriate. As the appellant Management received the findings of only the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee within the period of 10 days mandated by Rule 37 (6) of the Rules, it decided to terminate the services of respondent no.2 on the basis of the recommendation and the findings received. The appellant Management issued order terminating the service of respondent no.2 w.e.f. 1.4.2000, thereby terminating the service of respondent no.2.

3. The findings of the other two members of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 were received by the appellant Management. According to the appellant, these findings were no findings in the eyes of law because the period of ten days mandated by Rule 37 (6) of the Rules whereby findings were to be submitted to the appellant Management, had expired on 9.3.2000 itself. Therefore, Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management submitted that the aforesaid findings of the two members were meaningless. The findings of the State Awardee teacher leveled wild allegations against the Convenor and Management nominee Member of the Inquiry Committee. The third member, the nominee of respondent no.2, simply adopted the findings of the aforesaid State Awardee teacher. In their findings both these members exonerated the respondent no.2.

4. The respondent no.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document