IMPORTANT POINT
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 length of service.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The Petition is filed by Petitioner challenging judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal dismissing Appeal No.12 of 2017 filed by Petitioner challenging termination order dtd. 24/2/2007.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner came to be initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Shri Vidya Prashala on 27/4/1994. On 7/2/1998, he was transferred to the Respondent-School. While serving in the Respondent-School Petitioner was served with statement of allegations dtd. 23/1/2006 under Rule 28(5) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (Rules of 1981). Petitioner was called upon to submit written explanation within seven days. By letter dtd. 30/1/2006, Petitioner requested for time to file Reply upto 3/3/2006 by requisitioning certified copy of charges and documents for drafting of Reply. The Management however proceeded to institute an enquiry committee by nominating the convener and award winning teacher and called upon Petitioner to communicate name of his nominee vide letter dtd. 6/2/2006. On 20/2/2006 Petitioner nominated name of Shri R.B. Patil as his defence convener. The Management thereafter issued chargesheet dtd. 25/2/2006 under provisions of Rule 37(1) of the Rules of 1981. Enquiry was conducted into the charges by examining six witnesses. However apparently all the cited witnesses were not examined. It also appears that out of 27 charges leveled against Petitioner charges at serial nos.4 and 5 were dropped. Petitioner's defence nominee conducted cross-examination of the witnesses. The Management had nominated a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the Management. The enquiry committee gave report holding some of the charges as proved. The Management thereafter proceeded to pass order dtd. 24/2/2007 terminating the services of Petitioner with effect from 1/3/2007. Aggrieved by the termination order dtd. 24/2/2007 Petitioner filed Appeal No.12 of 2007 before the School Tribunal, Pune. By its judgment and order dtd. 7/5/2008, the School Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal filed by Petitioner. Aggrieved by the decision of the School Tribunal, Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

3. Mr. Panchal, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that the entire proceedings of the enquiry are vitiated on account of irregularity in constitution of enquiry committee and issuance of charge-sheet. Drawing attention to the provisions of rule 36(2) of the Rules of 1981, Mr. Panchal would submit that the Chief Executive Officer or President is required to consider the explanation submitted by an employee before placing the matter before the Management who can thereafter take a decision about conduct of an enquiry or for dropping the proposal. In the present case the statement of allegations were served on 23/1/2006 and before Petitioner would reply to the allegations, decision was taken to constitute an enquiry committee on 6/2/2006. That Petitioner's application dtd. 30/1/2006 seeking extension of time is erroneously treated as explanation/reply to the chargesheet. That there is clear violation of rule 36(2) of the Rules of 1981 and on this ground alone the entire proceedings or enquiry are liable to be set aside. He would rely on judgment of this Court in National Integration and Education Welfare Society vs. Presiding Officer and others, (2021) 6 ALL MR 789.

4. Mr. Panchal would further submit that all the witnesses examined against Petitioner were those against whom Petitioner had made complaints and thus reliance is placed on evidence led by inimical witnesses who were interested in ensuring punishment to Petitioner. That the disciplinary proceedings were initiated by way of a counterblast to the Complaints made by Petitioner. That there is no provision for appointment of Presenting Officer. Even if Presenting Officer can be appointed, opportunity must be given