Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
ANIL S. KILOR, J.
Rukhmini Laxman Jadhao @ Rukhmini Sahebrao Bhange – Petitioner
Versus
Yavatmal Zilla Akhil Kunbi Samaj – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5637, 8400 of 2022
Decided On : 23-01-2024
Enquiry Procedure - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 - Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 - The court examined the compliance with Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The court found that the procedure as prescribed under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 was not followed, leading to the vitiation of the enquiry. The court held that the Tribunal rightly granted liberty to the management to conduct a fresh enquiry by following due procedure. The court also addressed the issue of subsistence allowance and directed the management to pay subsistence allowance if the employee is put under suspension pending enquiry, or if decided not to put under suspension, pay salary regularly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, was terminated by the respondent Education Society. The petitioner challenged the termination order under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, alleging non-compliance with Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 during the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry conducted by the management did not comply with the prescribed procedure under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981, leading to the vitiation of the enquiry. The court also addressed the issue of subsistence allowance and directed the management to pay subsistence allowance if the employee is put under suspension pending enquiry, or if decided not to put under suspension, pay salary regularly.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the compliance with Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enquiry conducted by the management did not comply with the prescribed procedure under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981, leading to the vitiation of the enquiry. The court also addressed the issue of subsistence allowance and directed the management to pay subsistence allowance if the employee is put under suspension pending enquiry, or if decided not to put under suspension, pay salary regularly.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Writ Petition No. 5637 of 2022 and allowed Writ Petition No. 8400 of 2022. The court set aside Clause-6 of the impugned order and confirmed the remaining clauses. The management was directed to pay subsistence allowance if the employee is put under suspension pending enquiry, or if decided not to put under suspension, pay salary regularly. Both the Writ Petitions were disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL S. KILOR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
3. Both these petitions are arising out of the judgment and order dated 10/08/2022 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 39 of 2018, partly allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5637 of 2022 challenging her termination as Assistant Teacher.
4. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 5637 of 2022 are being referred to.
5. The respondent No. 1 is an Education Society runs various educational institutions at Mahagaon as well as Umarkhed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are recognized schools run by the respondent No. 1-Society. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the respondent No. 1-Society.
6. The appellant was served with the show cause notices dated 17/03/2018 and 21/03/2018 calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation on three charges levelled against her. As the controversy involved does not demand detail scrutiny of the charges, hence, it would suffice to state that, charges were related to misconduct and negligence in duty.
7. On receipt of show cause notices, the petitioner submitted her explanation. Thereupon, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and having found guilty she was terminated w.e.f. 27/08/2018 vide order dated 27/08/2018.
8. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the termination order, filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1977”), raising a challenge to the validity of the termination order mainly on the ground that there was no compliance of Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1981”) while conducting the enquiry and as such the enquiry vitiates and consequently the termination vitiates.
9. The learned School Tribunal found substance in the case of the petitioner, accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 10/08/2022. The operative order reads thus:
(2) The termination order dated 27.08.2020 terminating the services of the appellant is quashed and set aside.
(3) The respondents are directed to reinstated the appellant on her former post within 45 days from date of this order.
(4) The Management is at liberty to start fresh inquiry against the appellant by following due procedure of law.
(5) The management shall complete the fresh inquiry positively within six months from the date of this order.
(6) The appellant shall be deemed to be under suspension from date of termination and the respondents shall pay the suspension allowance to the appellant from date of termination order dated 27/08/2020 till reinstatement.
(7) The appellant is entitled to full salary from the date of reinstatement if there would be no further orders on the point of suspension as per Rules.
(8) The question of payment of back salary of the appellant shall be decided by the management depending upon outcome of the fresh inquiry.
(9) Both the parties to bear their own costs.
(10) The copy of this order be sent to the Education Officer for information.”
10. Thereupon, these two petitions have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 10/08/2022 passed by the School Tribunal.
11. The Writ Petition No. 5637 of 2022 is filed by the appellant/employee. Whereas, the Writ Petition No. 8400 of 2022 is filed by the Management and the Schools i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Hence, it would be appropriate to refer to the prayer clauses of both the Writ Petitions, which read thus:
“(i) To quash and set aside clause 4 to 8 of operative portion of order dated 10.08.22 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the prescribed procedure under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 in conducting enquiries, and the entitlemen....
The court established that adherence to procedural fairness is critical in disciplinary proceedings, and penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, especially considering the employee's lengt....
Non-compliance with the rules governing the enquiry procedure and bias on the part of the Management and the Enquiry Committee led to the vitiation of the entire enquiry against the respondent no.3.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the employee to defend himself and the consequences of breaching statutory rules and pr....
The main legal point established is the requirement for fair and just enquiry proceedings in cases of termination, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
The judgment establishes that non-compliance with statutory procedures in disciplinary inquiries can lead to the invalidation of termination and highlights the importance of adhering to principles of....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures, including notice and opportunity to defend, to ensure compliance with natural justice.
The court clarified the application of Rule 35(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, in determining the revocation of suspension and payment of suspe....
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
