Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
Prithviraj S. Singh & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, School Education Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 2506 & 2507 of 2006
Decided On : 17-06-2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. S.C. Naidu, i/b. Mr.Shaikh Nasir Masih for the Petitioner
Mr. Surel Shah for the Respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7, Mr. U.S. Upadhyay, A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 3
Mr. J.S. Saluja, A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 to 3
Headnote:
The petitioners, junior clerk and senior clerk in a school, challenged the orders passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai, upholding the termination of their services. The petitioners contended that the termination was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners also contended that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were junior clerk and senior clerk in a school. They were placed under suspension by the school management. During the pendency of the suspension, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioners. The petitioners did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry committee found the petitioners guilty of the charges levelled against them. The school management terminated the services of the petitioners based on the findings of the enquiry committee. The petitioners challenged the termination orders before the School Tribunal, Mumbai. The School Tribunal upheld the termination orders. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the orders of the School Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry as they had not pleaded or proved that they were prejudiced due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. The High Court also held that the enquiry proceedings were not vitiated due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. The High Court further held that the petitioners had deliberately not participated in the enquiry proceedings and therefore, they could not challenge the termination orders on merits.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry? 2. Whether the enquiry proceedings were vitiated due to non-payment of subsistence allowance? 3. Whether the petitioners were denied the principles of natural justice during the enquiry proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners were not entitled to subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry as they had not pleaded or proved that they were prejudiced due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. 2. The enquiry proceedings were not vitiated due to non-payment of subsistence allowance. 3. The petitioners were not denied the principles of natural justice during the enquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
By these two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari, for quashing the two separate orders passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. 1 of 2005 and Appeal No.2 of 2005 filed by the petitioners respectively and praying for an order and directions against the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with all full back wages and consequential benefits. Since the facts in both the matters are identical, by consent of parties both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners has summarized the facts in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2006, I shall deal with the facts in the said writ petition in the later part of this judgment. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding aforesaid two petitions are as under :-
2. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the officers appointed under the provisions of the of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (CS) Regulation Act, 1978 (in short MEPS Act). The respondent no.4 is a registered trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 which runs a school viz. Dayanand Vedic Vidyalaya Hindi High School. The respondent nos. 5 to 8 were the office bearers of the respondent no.4.
3. Sometimes in the year 1971, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2507 of 2006 was appointed as a junior clerk in the school run by the respondent no.4 w.e.f. 25th October, 1971. He was thereafter promoted as a senior clerk in the 7th respondent school. The said school is a private, recognized and fully aided Hindi Medium High School.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that from 1999 onwards there were serious disputes between factions of the managing committee of the respondent no.4. There were also disputes between one senior most teacher Mr. K.K. Mishra as well as Mr. Jai Shankar Singh, the then Head Master when the dispute arose in respect of the subject matter of this petition is concerned. On 1st January 2000 the post of the Head Master fell vacant. The education inspector accorded the signatory powers to the senior most teacher Mr. K.K. Mishra w.e.f. 1st January, 2000. Mr. Jaishankar Singh filed an appeal on 18th January, 2000 before the school tribunal.
5. By an order dated 28th March, 2001, the school tribunal dismissed the said Appeal No. 4 of 2000 filed by the respondent no.8 and recorded a finding that the appointment of the respondent no.8 was not legal and that the said appeal was filed in collusion with one Mr. Mithailal Singh who headed one of the rival group of the management committee members.
6. On 29th March, 2001 the respondent no.8 was suspended by the respondent no.5 on account of the alleged misappropriation of the school funds. In the year 2001, the respondent no.8 filed a writ petition (2202 of 2001) impugning the order and judgment dated 28th March, 2001 delivered by the school tribunal.
7. By an order dated 2nd September, 2002 this Court dismissed the said writ petition. The respondent no.7 thereafter preferred Letters Patent Appeal (St) No. 37822 of 2002 before the Division Bench of this Court but did not move the said appeal.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12th December, 2003, the group headed by respondent no.6 made a baseless complaint against Mr. K.K. Mishra, the then headmaster, the petitioner as well as the senior clerk to the Education Department alleging misappropriation of the school and trust funds.
9. On 15th December, 2003 the respondent no.6 also lodged a complaint against three persons with the respondent no.1 with a request through appropriate authority to inquire into the matter under his supervision and to take necessary action against those three persons including the petitioner.
10. The respondent no.1 by his order dated 19th December, 2003 ordered an enquiry through respondent nos. 2 and 3 pursuant to the said complaint dated 15th December, 2003. The respondent no.3 thereafter
