IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must strictly adhere to statutory procedures; failure to do so renders penalties invalid.

JUDGMENT :

(Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the litigating sides, heard finally.

2. Petitioner is a teacher of the respondent No.4 private management, who is challenging order dated 18.04.2016 imposing penalty and further seeking direction to grant him benefits of service like seniority, backwages and consequential benefits. The respondent management imposed punishment of reducing the scale of the petitioner after conducting an inquiry. During pendency of this matter he attained age of superannuation on 31.05.2024.

3. Due to supervening event of superannuation, Civil Application No.3649 if 2024 was filed for fixing present matter for final hearing and for a direction for forwarding the proposal of retiral benefits to the concerned department. In response to the civil application, management submitted reply and disclosed that the proposal for retiral benefits was forwarded on 12.04.2024 and necessary compliance has been made. In view of subsequent development, it is additionally prayed by the petitioner that if the petition succeeds, then revised proposal for retiral benefits be forwarded to the competent authority.

4. Petitioner is a permanent employee of the respondent No.5 School run by the respondent No.4 institution. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher from 15.06.1992 and his appointment was approved by the respondent NO.3 Education Officer. He was issued appointment orders on 02.06.1993 and again on 13.06.1994. His appointments were approved. He was granted permanent approval from 01.07.1999. The respondents have not disputed the initial appointment of the petitioner and the approvals. Neither have they disputed that petitioner is a permanent employee.

5. It is case of the petitioner that the office bearers of the respondent had exploited him and other employees by extracting money regularly. When the petitioner protested, he was transferred from earlier school of Matkuli to the respondent No.5 School vide order dated 15.06.2015. There was issue in respect of permitting the petitioner to join the transferred place. The petitioner and the respondents have conflicting stands in this regard but those are not relevant for the decision of present controversy. The respondent management proposed disciplinary action against him.

6. To decide the controversy involved in this petition, we propose to narrate the following facts leading to the disciplinary action against the petitioner :-

(i) Education Officer granted permission to suspend the petitioner by order dated 07.12.2015.

(ii) Secretary addressed letter dated 11.12.2015 informing the decision of the management of constitution of inquiry committee and approval given by the Education Officer to suspend him.

(iii) Secretary informed petitioner vide letter dated 08.01.2016 that inquiry committee was constituted and simultaneously informed Education Officer the members of the inquiry committee.

(iv) Petitioner submitted application dated 19.01.2016 that order of suspension was not served upon him and constitution of inquiry committee was illegal.

(v) Simultaneously, on the same date petitioner informed name of Mr. B. S. Khose as his nominee.

(vi) Secretary informed petitioner vide letter dated 27.01.2016 allegations levelled against him, replying his letter dated 23.12.2015.

(vii) Petitioner was informed about the dates of hearing on couple of occasions.

(viii) Statement of allegation was forwarded by inquiry committee to the petitioner on 24.02.2016.

(ix) Inquiry Committee issued the Charge-sheet comprising of five charges to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.02.2016.

(x) Inquiry report was prepared on 09.04.2016 disclosing inquiry on 11 charges, which was signed by two members and imposing penalty of reducing the scale of the petitioner.

(xi) Petitioner was informed decision of punishment of reduction of scale by the Secretary and directed him to resume the duties as the suspension was revoked due to conclusion of the inquiry.

7. Learned