IMPORTANT POINT
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 natural justice in employment disputes.

JUDGMENT

Shailesh P. Brahme, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard litigating sides finally at the admission stage.

2. In both the petitions, judgment and order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur in Appeal No.27/2017 is under challenge. I would refer to the papers of Writ Petition No.7482/2022 for the sake of convenience. It is preferred by the management against quashment of order of termination and direction to conduct fresh enquiry within six months by suspending respondent no.1. Writ Petition No.12561/2022 is filed by the respondent no.l/employee against direction to conduct fresh enquiry by suspending him, instead of granting him reinstatement with full back-wages.

3. Respondent no.1 was working as Kamathi in Ashram School run by the petitioner since 12.06.2006. He was permanent employee. He was found to be indulging into misconduct, negligence and absentees. He was issued with statement of allegations and charge-sheet vide letter dated 29.11.2016. An enquiry committee was constituted comprising of four members. It submitted report on 10.07.2017 to the management. Respondent no.1 was terminated by order dated 17.07.2017 with effect from 03.09.2016. Being aggrieved, respondent no.1 preferred appeal no.27/2017 before school tribunal. It was contested by the petitioners. By the impugned judgment and order, it was allowed partly on 25.04.2022.

4. It is held by the School Tribunal that there was noncompliance of provisions of Rule 36 (2)(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation, Rules of 1981 (hereinafter referred to as Rules for the sake of brevity). It is further held that there was breach of Rule 33 of Rules. The procedure contemplated by Rule 37(2)(a)(ii) of the Rules was not followed. It is further held that no sufficient opportunity was extended to crossexamine the witnesses. The grievance of the respondent no.1 or his representatives was not considered. It has been recorded that there was breach of Rule 37(4) (5) and (6) of the Rules.

5. It is held that there was no discussion amongst the members of the enquiry committee before submitting the report. It is further held that there was no recommendation for specific action to be taken against the delinquent. Ultimately disciplinary action was found to be in utter breach of statutory procedure. Hence, instead of reinstating respondent no.1, matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to the stage from which it was vitiated. Management is given direction to conduct fresh enquiry by suspending the delinquent.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. A.B. Gatne makes following submissions :

i. The facts recorded by the Presiding Officer in paragraph nos.20, 21 and 22 that certain material facts were admitted, are perverse. Management has not admitted anything.

ii. Statement of allegation was forwarded to the respondent no.1 by covering letter dated 29.11.2016 which was also treated to be charge-sheet. The respondent no.1 refused to accept the same. For the second time, copy of statement of allegations was sent to the respondent no.1 which was compliance of Rule 36 (1).

iii. The respondent no.1 was given opportunity to nominate his member. It was not availed of.

iv. Constitution of committee of more members than requirement of law would not be an illegality. There was sufficient compliance of Rule 36(3).

v. Respondent no.1 was supplied with 328 documents through Mrs. Manda Baban Pol, his representative vide letter dated 01.04.2017.

vi. Respondent no.1 was given opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. Only couple of witnesses were crossexamined and remaining witnesses though offered were not examined.

vii. There was due compliance of Rule 37(2)(d) and Rule 37(4)(5) and (6).

viii. It is further submitted that report of the enquiry committee bears specific recommendation and could not be faulted.

ix. It is further submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there is violati