SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S. Patil, J.
Fr. Peter Thamaji Amolik – Petitioner
Versus
The President, Saint Francis De-Sales Education Society (SFS School) and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7916 of 2015
Decided On : 04-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. P. Pandav.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Kadam, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 read with Article 226 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Section 9 - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 37(4) to 37(6) – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioner is challenging judgment and order – Appeal against order of his termination issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - Whether individual charges are sufficient and justify order of termination, charge No. 15 which stands duly proved as discussed herein above is sufficient even to justify drastic punishment imposed on petitioner – Held, restricting present scrutiny only in respect of testimony and to ascertain if charge No. 15 (supra) stands proved through her testimony, court have carefully perused her testimony - She has specifically stated about having filed a complaint in respect of an episode about petitioner having once addressed her by using words ‘all seasons woman’ - She also stated about he having said to her that he was having a feeling as if they have not met for ‘decades’ - She specifically stated about he having once objected by saying that ‘whenever he turned up she would look other way’ - Pertinently, even representative of petitioner who was a member of committee examined her by putting several questions - She lastly stated about having felt awkward due to such utterances - Therefore, only question is as to if such address to a female teacher by headmaster of a school would constitute a misconduct or turpitude - To Court mind taking into account relationship which ought to be there in persons holding these posts, such utterances would certainly be not befitting post of headmaster - School Tribunal in judgment under challenge has carefully scrutinized these utterances while rightly concluding that those are indeed indecent, uncultured and unbecoming of a person holding a post of headmaster - In court considered view, observations and conclusions of learned Member of School Tribunal in this respect, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be either perverse, arbitrary or capricious so that this Court can reconsider it and arrive at some independent conclusion - Writ Petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kadam waives service for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent No. 3. At the joint request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad dismissing his Appeal No. 10/2013 preferred under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter ‘the MEPS Act’) dated 14.08.2014 against the order of his termination issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 in a school run by the Society on 18.10.2000 as a headmaster by name St. Xavier’s High School Aurangabad. With effect from 01.08.2006 he was transferred to another school being run by the Society by name St. Francis De Sales High School.

4. Having found the petitioner to have engaged in various misconducts, negligence and even moral turpitude, he was put under suspension with effect from 15.12.2008. He was then served with a charge-sheet containing following charges :

    (1) Being under influence of alcohol while being on the duty.

(2) Unable to avoid drinking in public.

(3) Using slang language against teachers, staff and students.

(4) Behaving rudely and irresponsibly towards them.

(5) Creating false record and issuing fake certificates to persons unconcerned with the school.

(6) Failure to give proper accounts and not allowing the staff to maintain the accounts.

(7) Embezzlement of the rents received from use of Society’s properties.

(8) Not issuing receipts of tuition fees to the students and their parents.

(9) Choosing foul language against the members of the Managing Committee and disrespecting the authority of Bishop.

(10) The behaviour being not in the interest and welfare of the students.

(11) The conduct of unbecoming of a teacher.

(12) Filing of criminal complaints with police.

(13) Not conducting classes.

(14) Writing letters to the authorities and political parties even after suspension.

(15) Immodest behaviour and attitude towards lady teachers.

(16) Neglecting administrative, educational and financial matters.

5. While serving the charge-sheet (Exh. ‘J’) dated 18.05.2009 he was also informed that a committee consisting of two members was constituted and would hold its first meeting on 02.06.2009.

6. The petitioner by his communication dated 06.06.2009 (Exh. ‘K’) sought time of 10 days for giving a reply. He then submitted his detailed explanation dated 29.06.2009. Initially it is only the President that is the respondent No. 1 and one Mr. H.S. Sakhare, State Awardee Teacher were the members of the committee. However, subsequently in view of the provisions of the MEPS Act, the petitioner nominated his representative on Three Member Committee by suggesting name of one Mr. Subhash Ratansing Maher.

7. The enquiry then proceeded as usual. The witnesses were called and the petitioner was found guilty under different charges resulting in terminating his services.

8. The petitioner challenged the order of termination dated 20.10.2009 by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act bearing Appeal No. 30/2009 before the School Tribunal.

9. The Appeal was partly allowed on 22.03.2012 with following directions :

    1. The Appeal is partly allowed.

2. The impugned dismissal order dated 22/10/2009 issued by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. The impugned report dated 21/10/2009 is quashed and set aside.

4. The respondent management is directed to constitute inquiry committee to conduct inquiry against the appellant from the stage dated 20/10/2009 of earlier inquiry proceeding and the new inquiry committee to observe rule 37(4) to 37(6) of MEPS Rules while conducting the inquiry proceeding against the appellant.

5. Pending inqui

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top