Management liable for full back wages on reinstatement after quashing its illegal termination via faulty, biased enquiry; state not liable for reimbursement without involvement in disciplinary process.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the Chairman and Secretary of the same Education Society. Petitioner No.3 is the College in which Respondent No.5, was working as an Assistant Teacher.

3. The sequence of dates and events are summarized as under :-

(a) Respondent No.5 was appointed as a probationer Teacher vide an appointment order dated 14^th May, 1994 for a period of two years.

(b) By an order dated 12^th May, 1999, Respondent No.5 was confirmed as a Teacher in the College.

(c) On 29^th August, 2015, Respondent No.3/College requested the Deputy Director, Education Department, Mumbai for permission to suspend Respondent No.5.

(d) On 4^th September, 2015, i.e., within five days of seeking permission and without waiting for the response of the Deputy Director, Education Department, Mumbai, the Management suspended the R 5 Teacher with immediate effect.

(e) The statement of allegations under Rule 36(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MEPS Rules 1981’), was issued on 14^th November, 2015.

(f) The Management constituted an Enquiry Committee and a chargesheet dated 19^th January, 2016 was issued to her.

(g) After conducting the enquiry, the Convener of the Enquiry Committee submitted the majority report dated 13^th September, 2017, and the Teachers’ nominee submitted his separate dissenting report dated 9^th September, 2017.

(h) The College issued an order of termination by way of punishment under Rule 29(5) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 on 31^st October, 2017.

(i) The Teacher approached the School Tribunal by preferring an Appeal No.09 of 2018.

(j) By Judgment dated 20^th December, 2019, the School Tribunal, Mumbai allowed the Appeal, quashed and set aside the order of termination and granted reinstatement to the Teacher with continuity and full back wages.

(k) The Judgment of the School Tribunal was not challenged by the Management and it attained finality.

(l) The Management reinstated Respondent No.5 on 17^th January, 2020 on the same post in the Mithibai College of Arts, Chauhan Institute of Science and Amrutben Jivanlal College of Commerce and Economics, which is a sister Institution.

(m) On 21^st December, 2020, the Petitioners’ College submitted the supplementary bill to the Education Inspector for Greater Mumbai (Western Zone).

(n) The Petitioners by letter dated 21^st December, 2020 forwarded to the Education Inspector a copy of the supplementary bill of back wages from 1^st October, 2015 to 31^st January, 2020.

(o) The Petitioners issued reminders to the Deputy Director of Education to pay the back wages to Respondent No.5/Teacher.

(p) Respondent No.5/Teacher has filed an Execution Petition No.114 of 2013, before the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Borivali Division, Mumbai.

(q) A Recovery Certificate dated 8^th February, 2023, was issued in favour of the Teacher.

4. The Petitioner/Management has preferred this Petition seeking a direction to the State Government to comply with the order of the School Tribunal. In the said cause, the Management has put forth Prayer Clauses (a), (b) and (c), as under :

“(a) That this Hon