Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Subrat Kumar Sahoo - Appellant
Versus
Hash The Ld. Presiding Officer Mumbai University And College Tribunal Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.10472 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 4447 of 2023
Decided On : 27-09-2023
EMPLOYMENT LAW - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - STATUTE 444, STATUTE 439 - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the termination of the Petitioner due to the lack of a proper disciplinary enquiry, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice. The court interpreted the relevant statutes to allow the Respondent-Management to conduct a fresh enquiry while also determining that the Petitioner should be treated as under deemed suspension and entitled to subsistence allowance during the enquiry period, thus ensuring the protection of the employee's rights during the process.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a Lecturer, was terminated from service by the Respondent-Management without a proper enquiry, following a series of complaints regarding his performance. The Tribunal reinstated him but allowed the Management to conduct a fresh enquiry and denied backwages pending the outcome of that enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's order to allow a fresh enquiry was justified, as the initial termination lacked adherence to due process. However, it ruled that the Petitioner should be treated as under deemed suspension and entitled to subsistence allowance during the enquiry period.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in granting the Respondent-Management the opportunity to conduct a fresh enquiry and in denying backwages to the Petitioner during the enquiry period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that setting aside a termination for lack of enquiry does not equate to a clean chit for the employee, and the employer must be given a chance to conduct a proper enquiry. However, the employee must be compensated during the period of deemed suspension until the enquiry is concluded.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order regarding the fresh enquiry but modifying the decision on backwages, directing that the Petitioner be treated as under deemed suspension and entitled to subsistence allowance from the date of termination until the conclusion of the enquiry.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, petition is heard finally.
2. This petition is filed by Petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 10 December 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal (Tribunal) to the extent of grant of liberty to hold fresh enquiry and non-grant of backwages. The Tribunal has partly allowed Petitioner's Appeal challenging the termination. While granting reinstatement with continuity, the Tribunal has granted liberty to the Respondent-Management to hold fresh enquiry, with further direction to pay backwages only in the event of noncompletion of the enquiry within 08 months.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 11 June 2007 in the Respondent No.3 college, run and managed by the Respondent No.2 Trust. The appointment was approved by the University by letter dated 20 December 2007. Petitioner was confirmed in service on 10 June 2009. A Notice was issued to him on 31 January 2018 by the Principal alleging that he had failed to improve his performance and teaching methods despite several written complaints from the students. It was stated that same would constitute three months' notice of termination and that his services shall stand terminated from 30 April 2018. However instead of terminating his services, Petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 23 April 2018 on the charges of '(i) no class control; (ii) lectures not effected.' On 25 May 2018, Petitioner's suspension was revoked. He submitted a complaint on 27 June 2018 to the University alleging harassment by the college. In his complaint, he alleged that though his suspension was revoked, the college was not allowing him to sign muster. Petitioner submitted letter dated 02 July 2018 to the Principal seeking allotment of timetable with full workload.
4. On 03 July 2018, the Principal issued a letter to Petitioner alleging failure to report to duty after reopening of college on 18 June 2018 and directed that the letter be treated as a Notice for termination of service. The letter however directed Petitioner to report for duties on time. On 29 August 2018, the Principal issued one more letter to Petitioner referring to various complaints received against him and conveying to him that decision of termination would stand valid. Petitioner submitted grievance before the Chairman, University of Mumbai Grievance Committee on 30 August 2018. He also wrote to the management on 25 December 2018. By letter received by him on 05 January 2019, the Principal communicated to him that he was terminated from service vide letter dated 03 July 2018 and asked him not to attend the college as no workload was assigned to him. By letter dated 14 January 2019, the Principal referred to supervision duty performed by Petitioner at F. Y. B.Com. November / December examination and held that the Petitioner was unable to control the class and maintain the decorum of the examination during supervision duty assigned to him. Petitioner was directed to be more vigilant in future regarding duties assigned to him. On the same date i.e. on 14 January 2019, the Principal replied to Petitioner's letter dated 25 January 2018 which he had addressed to the Trust. In that letter, the Principal confirmed Petitioner's termination vide letter dated 03 July 2018.
5. Petitioner thereafter sent several letters to the University, Police authorities, etc. He later approached the Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 02 of 2019 challenging letters dated 03 July 2018 and 14 January 2019 terminating his services. Appeal was resisted by the RespondentManagement and College by filing written statement. By its judgment and order dated 13 January 2019, Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has proceeded to partly allow the Appeal holding that the Respondent College did not conduct any enquiry before terminating Petitioner's services. Petitioner
An employee wrongfully terminated without a proper enquiry is entitled to be treated as under deemed suspension and receive subsistence allowance during the period of the enquiry, ensuring protection....
The principle of 'No Work, No Pay' cannot be invoked when an employee is willing to work but is kept out due to the actions of the employer, which were ultimately declared illegal by judicial orders.
Probationary employees possess statutory protections and cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedures under the governing statute, which mandates documented grounds for unsuitability ....
Under Article 227, High Court cannot interfere with school tribunal's setting aside of prejudiced disciplinary inquiry where findings mismatch framed charges, absent perversity or natural justice vio....
Non-compliance with the School Tribunal's order regarding back wages and exceeding the maximum period of suspension as per the rules led to the court setting aside the orders of suspension.
Charges of moral turpitude cannot be equated with legitimate complaints by an employee seeking redress for service rights; failure to comply with reinstatement orders deprives the employee of rightfu....
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
