JUDGMENT :

1. By order dated 23.03.2023, both Writ Petitions were admitted and expedited. These are cross Writ Petitions.

2. Writ Petition No.655 of 2021 is filed by the School Management on 09.02.2021 impugning the orders dated 22.08.2019 (Exhibit “G” thereto) and 12.11.2020 (Exhibit “O” thereto) passed by the Respondents. Writ Petition (L) No.7172 has been filed by the Teacher on 09.02.2023 impugning the orders dated 22.08.2019 and 12.11.2020 i.e. the same orders.

3. Facts in both Writ Petitions are identical.

3.1. Writ Petition No.655 of 2021 is filed by Our Lady of Dolours School Trust (for short “the School”) and Writ Petition (L.) No.4172 of 2023 has been filed by Ashunta Vivek Prabhu alias Monteiro (who is Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.655 of 2021) (for short “the Teacher”). Petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.655 of 2021 is a Minority Institution which runs the Petitioner No.2 - English Medium Primary School recognized by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “MCGM”). The School receives “Grant-in-Aid” from the Municipal Corporation for payment of salary and non-salary expenses. The Teacher was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School on 03.01.1992 and subsequently promoted as Head Teacher on 15.06.2007.

3.2. Some time in 2015, the School received complaints and information about misconduct committed by the Teacher and hence statement of allegations cum charge-sheet dated 18.06.2015 was served upon the Teacher. The allegations in the charge-sheet included inappropriate physical / corporal punishment of beating meted out to two students, insulting, rude, harsh, offensive and impolite behaviour towards parents of students, improper and rude utterances with parents of students, suspension of one student for seven days for causing injury to another student and creating a fear psychosis in the mind of one student and his parent and therefore being guilty of misconduct of indiscipline, using derogatory and offensive language, inflicting punishment of suspension on student and arousing stirring up emotions of parents.

3.3. Before the Teacher could give any reply to the charge-sheet, by order dated 18.06.2015 passed on the same day the Teacher was placed under suspension.

3.4. The School decided to constitute an Enquiry Committee to inquire into the charges against the Teacher. Enquiry Committee was duly constituted in a manner similar to the provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short “MEPS Rules”).

3.5. The School served the charge-sheet dated 15.12.2015 on the Teacher. The School led evidence of its witnesses in support of the charges against the Teacher. The Teacher led evidence in rebuttal in support of her defence and she was cross-examined by the Principal of the School.

3.6. The Enquiry Committee returned its report dated 19.01.2017 and by a decision of 2:1 held that charges of misconduct levelled against the Teacher were proved and recommended that services of the Teacher should be terminated.

3.7. On 01.02.2017, the School passed the order of termination which was communicated to the Teacher.

3.8. Being aggrieved, the Teacher filed Appeal against the order of termination before the Education Officer, MCGM under Rule 20 of the Grant-in-Aid Code. The Appeal was contested by the School.

3.9. By order dated 22.08.2019, the Education Officer held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee, but the punishment that was awarded was disproportionate to the charges and the School should reconsider the same in the interest of humanity and the penalty imposed on the Teacher.

3.10. The School being aggrieved with the finding that the punishment awarded was disproportionate and directions to reconsider the same, filed Appeal before the Municipal Commissioner of the MCGM under Rule 20 of Appendix VII of the Grant-in-Aid Code.

3.11. Simultaneously the Teacher also filed Appeal before the MCGM agai