Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
Avinash G. Gharote, J.
National Integration And Education Welfare Society - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2017
Decided On : 15-11-2021
Enquiry Procedure - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 33, Rule 36, Rule 37
Fact of the Case:
The respondent no.3, a deemed confirmed employee, was suspended and terminated by the petitioner. The respondent no.3 challenged the termination order, which was allowed by the School Tribunal, directing reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the entire enquiry against the respondent no.3 was vitiated due to non-compliance with the rules governing the enquiry procedure. The court also found bias on the part of the Management and the Enquiry Committee. The court dismissed the petition, stating that no direction for a fresh enquiry was warranted.
Issues: Non-compliance with the enquiry procedure rules, bias on the part of the Management and the Enquiry Committee
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the entire enquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance with the rules governing the enquiry procedure and bias on the part of the Management and the Enquiry Committee.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The enquiry conducted against the respondent no.3 was found to be fundamentally flawed due to non-compliance with the prescribed rules and procedures, which rendered the enquiry vitiated (!) (!) (!) .
There was a clear violation of procedural fairness, including denial of adequate opportunity for the respondent no.3 to examine witnesses, to present evidence, and to effectively defend herself during the enquiry process (!) (!) (!) .
The management failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural steps required under the relevant rules, particularly Rules 33 to 37 of the MEPS Rules, which emphasize fairness, proper constitution of enquiry committees, and timely communication of allegations and responses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The enquiry proceedings were conducted in a manner that indicated bias, including the manner in which evidence was recorded and the manner in which witnesses expressed their willingness to testify, which was not appropriately considered or examined (!) (!) (!) .
The initial steps required for initiating the enquiry, such as issuing proper show-cause notices and obtaining necessary approvals for suspension, were not properly followed, further invalidating the process (!) (!) .
The enquiry report was based on conjecture and surmise, particularly regarding charges related to financial irregularities, where the management failed to produce substantive evidence or records to substantiate allegations (!) (!) .
The management's actions, including suspension and initiation of enquiry, were carried out without proper permission or compliance with the procedural requirements, indicating a biased and arbitrary approach (!) (!) .
The overall conduct of the enquiry was neither fair nor proper, leading to the conclusion that the entire process was vitiated, and therefore, any findings or decisions based on this enquiry are invalid (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice, and that the findings and actions taken on the basis of such an enquiry cannot be sustained (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards and fairness in disciplinary proceedings, and highlights that procedural violations can significantly impact the validity of disciplinary actions.
JUDGMENT
Avinash G. Gharote, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.3 being a duly qualified person was appointed in the school run by the petitioner in the year 2003, which appointment was approved by the Education Department. The respondent no.3 acquired the status of a deemed confirmed employee and she has continuously served from 1/7/2003 onwards. In 2012, the respondent no.3 was promoted as the Headmistress of the primary school and continued as such.
3. Show-cause-notices were issued to the respondent no.3 on 19/5/2015, 25/5/2015 and 29/5/2015. These show-cause-notices were duly replied by the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 was suspended on 3/6/2015, which was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No.3297/2015, in which the Education Officer was directed to enquire into the matter and file a report, in consequence of which an enquiry was conducted on 14/7/2015 and an affidavit was filed in Writ Petition No.3297/2015 on 19/8/2015.
4. The Management/petitioner completed the enquiry against the respondent no.3 and issued termination order on 30/8/2015.
5. The termination order was challenged by the respondent no.3 before the learned School Tribunal, Amravati, by way of Appeal No.66/2015, who by the judgment dated 4/2/2017 allowed the same, whereby the termination order dated 30/8/2015 of the respondent no.3 was quashed and set aside and the petitioner National Integration and Education Welfare Society (respondent no.1 therein) and the Education Officer (Primary) [respondent no.2 therein) were directed to reinstate the respondent no.3 in service along with the entire back wages from the date of her termination till the date of reinstatement, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
6. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that : -
(i) the enquiry was fair and proper; the respondent no.3 was present during the course of the enquiry, and therefore she had full opportunity to represent her case.
(ii) the charges had been proved against the respondent no.3 and there was no lacuna in the enquiry.
(iii) the entire procedure was followed.
(iv) there was compliance with the requirement of Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, "the MEPS Rules", hereinafter) and even if there were certain discrepancies, they did not cause any prejudice to the respondent no.3.
(v) the impugned judgment does not record any findings regarding any prejudice being caused to the respondent no.3 on account of any deviation from the procedure and therefore it cannot be said that the enquiry was vitiated.
(vi) the impugned judgment, according to him, is based upon conjectures and surmises and contained findings extraneous to the record.
(vii) He therefore submits that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(viii) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls and others, (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005) 8 SCC 264; Vidya Vikas Mandal and another Vs. Education Officer and another, 2007 AIR SCW 1141; Union of India Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, (2008) 12 SCC 30; Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and others, (2013) 6 SCC 515 and Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society, Nagpur and another Vs. School Tribunal, Nagpur and others, 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 879.
7. Shri Akshay Sudame, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 supports the argument as advanced by Shri Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. Shri P.S. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that :
(i) the entire procedure as laid down in Rules 33 to 37 of the MEPS Rules was not followed during the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
