The inquiry against the employee was invalidated due to bias, emphasizing the necessity of impartiality and the burden on the employer to prove non-employment for back wages.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 2 August 2019 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.7 of 2018. By the impugned decision, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the Appeal instituted by Respondent No.1, thereby setting aside the order of termination dated 23 February 2018 (effective from 24 February 2018).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Petition, briefly stated, are as follows:

(i) According to the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 has been serving as an Assistant Teacher in the institution since 14 June 1999. It is their case that from 21 January 2000 until 13 May 2013, several memoranda were issued to Respondent No.1 to caution him about his alleged misconduct, inappropriate behavior, and failure to adhere to the discipline expected of a teacher. It is further asserted that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Respondent No.1 from 2007 to 2013 contained adverse remarks, indicative of repeated lapses. Despite such adverse reports, the Petitioners extended salary increments and other emoluments to Respondent No.1, abiding by the relevant rules and regulations. They maintain that these increments were granted in the hope that Respondent No.1 would rectify his conduct and to avoid any arbitrariness or victimization.

(ii) On 13 June 2013, Respondent No.1 is stated to have addressed complaints to as many as nineteen different authorities, including the police, levelling allegations of a serious but allegedly baseless nature against the management. The Petitioners contend that these complaints caused considerable harassment to the Headmaster as well as the Managing Committee, thereby affecting the working environment.

(iii) Owing to this conduct, the Petitioners initiated minor disciplinary action by issuing Respondent No.1 a penalty of withholding one increment for a period of one year from 1 July 2013, which was subsequently restored in the following year. On 12 December 2013, Respondent No.2–Education Inspector directed Respondent No.1 to abide by the instructions issued by the Headmaster and the Management, to focus on academic responsibilities, and to refrain from lodging complaints without following the prescribed procedure.

(iv) On 27 July 2014, a statement of allegations was furnished to Respondent No.1, culminating in the initiation of an inquiry on 16 October 2014. The Petitioners aver that Respondent No.1 did not participate in the inquiry despite being accorded opportunities, a conduct that eventually led the inquiry committee to hold the charges against him as proved and recommend termination. Consequently, on 18 October 2014, Respondent No.1’s services were terminated.

3. Aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.39 of 2014 before the learned School Tribunal, Mumbai. The School Tribunal, upon hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal on 2 August 2016. Respondent No.1 challenged the said dismissal before this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.13054 of 2016. This Court, by its judgment dated 27 July 2017, set aside the Tribunal’s order with a direction to conduct a de novo inquiry while reinstating Respondent No.1 into service w.e.f. 1 August 2017. The question of back wages during the interregnum was left to be determined based on the outcome of the fresh inquiry.

4. In compliance with the directions of this Court, the Petitioners reinstated Respondent No.1 on 1 August 2017.

5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, a fresh inquiry committee was constituted. Initially, the Secretary of the Managing Committee, Mr. Mahesh Kisan Karle, was appointed as the Management’s nominee. Respondent No.1 raised an objection to the said appointment, whereupon Mr. Rahul Hule, another member of the Managing Committee, was inducted as the Inquiry Officer. The record indicates that due opportunity to defend was afforded to Respondent No.1; however, once again, the inquiry committee conclud