IMPORTANT POINT
An inquiry conducted under the MEPS Act must adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the requirement for impartiality in the inquiry process. Any bias or procedural unfairness can invalidate the termination of employment.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The petitioner is assailing the judgment dtd. 15/4/2008 rendered by the School Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal STN 41/2006 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the termination order dtd. 9/11/2006, 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 dtd. 24/6/1989 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 dtd. 29/8/2005 and 30/9/2005. 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 dtd. 19/9/2005 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 dtd. 25/4/2006, 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 12/5/2006. 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 dtd. 19/5/2006 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 dtd. 23/6/2006 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 11/7/2006. Petitioner contends that he was served with charge-sheet dtd. 21/7/2007 along with which were enclosed few documents. However, certain relevant documents inter alia copies of letter dtd. 10/3/2005, 11/3/2005, 16/5/2005 and 23/5/2005 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 Awardee Teacher and th