JUDGMENT - D.D. SINHA, J.:----Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Palshikar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri A.G. Mujumdar, A.G.P. for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. STN/30 of 1987 preferred by the petitioner against his order of termination, which came to be dismissed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal.

3. The petitioner was working as a Head Master in the school run by the respondent No. 1-Society. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant teacher with effect from 10-07-1980 and was promoted to the post of Head Master with effect from 01-09-1982. The petitioner's services came to be terminated vide order dated 26-03-1987. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 before the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and the same came to be dismissed on 27th August, 1987. Hence the present writ petition.

4. The petitioner, in the present petition, has challenged the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal as well as the order of termination passed by the respondent-Management. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was served with the statement of allegations on 01-07-1986 by the President of the respondent No. 1 Society. Shri D.S. Radke. The petitioner again was served with the statement of allegations dated 23-08-1986 by the Secretary of the respondent No. 1 Society Shri S.M. Radke. It is submitted that under the relevant Rules, the Secretary acts as a Presenting Officer or Chief Executive Officer of the Management to prove the charges against the delinquent employee and can never be a member of the Inquiry Committee. It is contended by the learned Counsel that Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 provides for Inquiry Committee, its constitution and composition. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 36 lays down the manner of conducting inquiry; and the composition of the inquiry of the Inquiry Committee is set out in sub-rule 2(b). It is contended that the Inquiry Committee to be constituted while inquiring into the alleged misconduct of the Head Master shall consist of :

(i) one member who shall be the President of the Management;

(ii) one member to be nominated by the Head from amongst the employees of any private school; and

(iii) one member chosen by the President from the Panel of Head masters on whom State/National Award has been conferred.

5. It is contended that as the rule provides for composition of the Inquiry Committee, no change therein could be effected by the Management, which prejudicially affects the interest of the employee. It is submitted that in the instant case, the Chief Executive Officer of the Management, i.e. Secretary Shri S.M. Radke was included in the Inquiry Committee in addition to the 3 members i.e. the President, nominee of the Head and member chosen from the panel of State/National award winner Head Masters and, therefore, Inquiry Committee, which was constituted for the purposes of going into the misconduct of the petitioner consisted of 4 persons instead of 3 persons, which is against the constitution of the Inquiry Committee contemplated under sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 36. Similarly, Secretary S.M. Radke who could not even be the member of the Inquiry Committee came to be designated as convener of the committee which is not permissible in view of sub-rule (2)(b) and is also not contemplated by sub-rule (5) of Rule 36.

6. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel, further contended that in the instant case, the President alone shall be the convener of the Inquiry Committee constituted in view of sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 36 and the action of the Presiden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document