Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Rohit B. Deo, J.
Abdul Shakil Shakil Ahamad S/o. Abdul Rasheed - Appellant
Vs.
Husanmiyan Education Society, Nagpur, through its Secretary, Sheikh Shabbir Fidvi, Near Bohara Masjid, Itwari, Nagpur - Respondent
Writ Petition No.3164 Of 2008
Decided On : 26-08-2022
Termination - Employee Rights - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - [TERMINATION] - [EMPLOYEE RIGHTS] - [MEPS Act, Section 5, Rule 28(5), Rule 36(2), Rule 37(4), Rule 37(6)] - The court discussed the termination of the employee and the violation of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the rules framed thereunder. The court found that the termination was motivated and vindictive, and the employee was victimized for approaching the High Court. The court also discussed the fairness and validity of the enquiry proceedings, finding that the majority verdict of guilt was vitiated due to bias by a member of the enquiry committee. The court quashed the termination order and awarded the employee 50% of the back-wages for the period from 09-11-2006 till the date of superannuation.
Fact of the Case:
The employee was terminated and challenged the termination order, alleging that it was motivated and vindictive, and that the employer victimized him for approaching the High Court. The employee contended that the disciplinary action was unfair and that relevant documents were not supplied, and he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. The employer denied the allegations and contended that the employee's work and behavior were unsatisfactory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was motivated and vindictive, and the employee was victimized for approaching the High Court. The court also found that the majority verdict of guilt was vitiated due to bias by a member of the enquiry committee. The court quashed the termination order and awarded the employee 50% of the back-wages for the period from 09-11-2006 till the date of superannuation.
Issues: The issues included the fairness and validity of the enquiry proceedings, the motivation behind the termination, and the violation of employee rights under the MEPS Act and its rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination was motivated and vindictive, and the majority verdict of guilt was vitiated due to bias by a member of the enquiry committee. The court also found that the employee's rights under the MEPS Act were violated, and the termination was unfair and invalid.
Final Decision: The court quashed the termination order and awarded the employee 50% of the back-wages for the period from 09-11-2006 till the date of superannuation.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is assailing the judgment dated 15.04.2008 rendered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal STN 41/2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the termination order dated 09.11.2006, is dismissed.
2. The petitioner shall be referred to as the employee and the respondent 1 as the employer.
3. The facts, to the extent relevant, are thus:
(i) The employee was initially appointed as Peon vide appointment order dated 24.06.1989 on probation for period of two years, pursuant to permission obtained from the Education Department and after following the due procedure. The employee was promoted as Laboratory Attendant in the year 1993 and in June, 1999 was promoted as Junior Clerk.
(ii) According to the employee he was paid a meager consolidated salary in gross violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and the Rules framed thereunder which constrained him to address letters cum representations dated 29.08.2005 and 30.09.2005. The just demand of the employee that he be paid salary in accordance with law was not perceived in the right spirit and the Head Mistress of the school issued letter dated 19.09.2005 alleging for the first time that the employee did not maintain the service record and that he committed certain lapses.
(iii) The refusal of the employer to pay salary in accordance with law constrained the employee to approach the High Court in Writ Petition 778/2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2006, in view of the statement of the employer that the employee shall be given pay scale as per Schedule-C of the MEPS Rules from June, 2006 onwards.
(iv) According to the employee after the High Court disposed of Writ Petition 778/2006 on the basis of the statement made by the employer, within a short period of 15 to 20 days, he was served with statement of allegations on 12.05.2006. The employee contends that since 1989 to 2006 the employer did not communicate any adverse remark nor was he issued any memo alleging improper discharge of duty and that it was only in view of the employee approaching the High Court, that the victimization started.
(v) The employee addressed communication dated 19.05.2006 to the employer stating that he was on medical leave and while the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet are not acceptable, he would submit reply after joining duty.
(vi) The employer decided to hold an inquiry and addressed communication dated 23.06.2006 calling upon the petitioner to nominate his representative in the inquiry. The employee was further informed that Mr. Shaikh Ali Hussain Bhai and Mr. Pandurang Shrawanji Umredkar are appointed as Convenor and President Awardee Teacher – Member of the Inquiry Committee, respectively.
(vii) The employee appointed Mr. S. J. Sorte as his representative and the Inquiry Committee was constituted on 11.07.2006. Petitioner contends that he was served with charge-sheet dated 21.07.2007 along with which were enclosed few documents. However, certain relevant documents inter alia copies of letter dated 10.03.2005, 11.03.2005, 16.05.2005 and 23.05.2005 were not served despite the specific demand of the employee.
(viii) According to the employee the inquiry which was conducted was farcical and the Member of the Inquiry Committee Mr. Pandurang Umredkar assumed the role of prosecutor. The employee further contends that the procedure adopted while conducting the inquiry clearly reveals that the fate of the employee was sealed and the inquiry was an empty formality.
(ix) The employee submits that the inquiry was closed on 17.10.2006 and summary of the proceeding was served and even that stage, the documents which were relied upon by the Inquiry Committee were not supplied to the employee.
(x) The employee submitted his reply/comments as regards the summary of the inquiry.
(xi) The nominee of the employee recorded a finding that the charges are not proved whereas the Awar
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
