Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GAURI GODSE, J.
Panchashil Primary School – Appellant
Versus
Nanda Balasaheb Shinde – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 3267, 4099 of 2007
Decided On : 26-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal sets aside 2006 termination, orders reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. 2012 termination set aside, strict departmental action directed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. non-compliance with reinstatement despite no stay. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. petitioners argue prejudice irrelevant, evidence reappreciation improper. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. respondent defends tribunal on prejudice, no evidence of refusal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. inquiry vitiated by unframed charges, prejudice. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. no evidence of employee refusal; deemed termination. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 8. tribunal interferes on natural justice breach; hc review sparing. (Para 34 , 35) |
| 9. writs dismissed; no interference warranted. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 10. enforce compliance; contempt for non-adherence. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
GAURI GODSE, J.
1. The Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007 is filed by the school and the management to challenge the order passed by the school tribunal on 16th March 2007, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no. 1 (teacher) to challenge the termination order dated 26th May 2006. The school tribunal has set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with full backwages. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board was directed that if the backwages are not paid by the petitioners, all the dues payable to the teacher should be deducted from the grant payable to the management and shall be directly paid to the teacher. A copy of the judgment, was sent to the Education Officer, the Deputy Director, Government of Maharashtra and the Director of Education, Government of Maharashtra. It is necessary to reproduce the orders and directions issued by the tribunal.
2. By the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 3267 of 2007, the termination order dated 26th May 2006 is set aside by issuing the following directions :
ORDER
“The appeal is allowed.
The termination order dated 26.05.2006 is hereby set aside.
The respondent no. 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the appellant within 40 days on the post of assistant teacher in primary section along with all consequential benefits including continuity of service and back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement her services shall remain in continuation.
The Education Officer is hereby directed, if the payment of back wages is not made by the management to the appellant within 60 days from today, then all the dues payable to the appellant shall be deducted from the grant payable to the management and be directly paid to the appellant under the intimation to this court.
Copy of the Judgment be sent to the Director of Education Maharashtra State Pune, Deputy Director of Education Greater Bombay and Education Officer”.
3. This petition was admitted on 6th June 2007; however, by a reasoned order, interim relief to stay the implementation of the impugned order was rejected. The petitioners challenged the rejection of the interim relief by filing a Letters Patent Appeal. However, the appeal was unconditionally withdrawn. Despite there being no interim relief in the petition, the order was not implemented by the petitioners. The directions issued to the Education Officer were also not complied with. The Education Officer, Thane Municipal Corporation School Board, is a party respondent to the writ petition of 2007. On 6th June 2007, when the petition was admitted and interim relief was refused, respondent no. 2 was present and represented through an advocate. However, neither any steps were taken to comply with the directions nor any application was filed in the petition pointing out the difficulty in implementing the directions.
4. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 had joined her services; however, she was not allowed to join her duty on 7th April 2012. Hence, she filed an Appeal No. 1 of 2014 before the school tribunal challenging her otherwise termin
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....
Allegations against an employer must be substantiated; failure to do so can result in justified dismissal for misconduct.
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal order of the respondent No.1 in view of the charges, which were proved against him.
The main legal point established is the requirement for fair and just enquiry proceedings in cases of termination, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
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.
Point of Law - In view of the above provisions of the Act, 1972 it emerges that due to fault of the management of the School the petitioner cannot be penalized by not granting the protection under Se....
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
