Important Point – Presence of an awardee teacher ensures impartiality of enquiry.

S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.

On 30 March 2012, while dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, a learned Single Judge of this Court was confronted with two judgments, both rendered by Division Benches of this Court, on the point involved, namely whether a retired teacher can be a member of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into the misconduct of Respondent no.1 appointed as Assistant Teacher in Petitioner no.2 school?

2. The management was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings of the School Tribunal: firstly, that the constitution of the inquiry committee was defective; And secondly, that the inquiry and the punishment imposed on this teacher were both bad in law. The School Tribunal therefore directed the management to reinstate the School Teacher with full back wages but reserving liberty to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry against him.

3. One Division Bench sitting at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.5867 of 2008 (Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra) held that the third member appointed on the inquiry committee has to be not only an awardee teacher but ought to be in service. There is a prior judgment, according to the learned Single Judge, rendered in the case of Sudha d/o. Bhaskarrao Saikhede Vs. Yashodabai Shikshan Sanstha and others reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 659, which suggests and seems to take a view that there is no bar for a retired awardee teacher to be a member of the inquiry committee. The learned Single Judge found that the attention of the later Division Bench in Leelatai Patil’s case (supra) was not invited to the judgment in the case of Sudha Saikhede (supra).

4. Then the learned Single Judge’s attention was invited to a third judgment rendered in the case of Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.10032 of 2010) decided on 28 September 2011 reported in 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 370. Though both the above referred Division Bench judgments were cited before the learned Single Judge while dealing with Writ Petition No.10032 of 2010, he has not assigned any reason why he chose to follow the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Leelatai Patil’s case (supra) and not earlier judgment in Sudha Saikhede’s case (supra).

5. In the referral order it has been observed that this issue arises repeatedly in large number of cases before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal faces a precarious situation as to which judgment, out of the above referred two judgments, both of Division Benches, should be followed. In view thereof and there being necessity of an authoritative pronouncement on the issue, the learned Single Judge who was dealing with Writ Petition No.126 of 2012, requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the issue to a Larger Bench of three Judges. That is how this Larger Bench has been constituted and to answer the following questions :

“(i) Whether a Teacher or Headmaster on whom State/ National Award has been conferred, who is to be chosen as a third member in an Inquiry Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981, can be a retired Teacher/Headmaster or has essentially to be an in service Teacher/Headmaster?

(ii) Which of the judgments of the Division Benches in the case of Leelatai d/o. Annapa Patil and Sudha d/o. Bhaskarrao Saikhede lay down a binding precedent regarding the age of the Award Winning Teacher/Headmaster?”

Accordingly, these questions were posed for answer and opinion by us.

6. At the outset, we clarify that we have not addressed the merits of the individual cases before us. Upon the questions referred being answered, the individual matters will go back to their respective Benches for being heard and disposed of in light of this judgment.

7. Mr. N.V.Bandiwadekar making the lead arguments invited our attention to the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘MEPS Act’