Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6700
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL
FR PETER THAMAJI AMOLIK – Appellant
Versus
PRESIDENT, SAINT FRANCIS DE SALES EDUCATION SOCIETY, AURANGABAD AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP/7916/2015
The principles of natural justice require that a person who is accused of misconduct must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - MEPS ACT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - ENQUIRY - [MEPS ACT, 1977]The enquiry stands vitiated for not observing the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was never extended an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was denied on an untenable ground that the questions put to the witnesses by the third member of the committee, who was his representative, was sufficient.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a headmaster by the respondent society in 2000. In 2008, he was put under suspension and served with a charge-sheet containing 16 charges of misconduct, negligence, and moral turpitude. An enquiry committee was constituted to investigate the charges. The petitioner challenged the order of termination before the School Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the enquiry was vitiated for not observing the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was never extended an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was denied on an untenable ground that the questions put to the witnesses by the third member of the committee, who was his representative, was sufficient.
Issues: Whether the enquiry was vitiated for not observing the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The principles of natural justice require that a person who is accused of misconduct must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. This is a fundamental right that cannot be denied.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination.
JUDGMENT :
- Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Kadam waives service for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned A.G.P. waives service for the respondent No. 3. At the joint request of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad dismissing his Appeal No. 10/2013 preferred under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter ‘the MEPS Act’) dated 14.08.2014 against the order of his termination issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent No. 1 in a school run by the Society on 18.10.2000 as a headmaster by name St. Xavier’s High School Aurangabad. With effect from 01.08.2006 he was transferred to another school being run by the Society by name St. Francis De Sales High School.
4. Having found the petitioner to have engaged in various misconducts, negligence and even moral turpitude, he was put under suspension with effect from 15.12.2008. He was then served with a charge-sheet containing following charges :
(1) Being under influence of alcohol while being on the duty.
(2) Unable to avoid drinking in public.
(3) Using slang language against teachers, staff and students.
(4) Behaving rudely and irresponsibly towards them.
(5) Creating false record and issuing fake certificates to persons unconcerned with the school.
(6) Failure to give proper accounts and not allowing the staff to maintain the accounts.
(7) Embezzlement of the rents received from use of Society’s properties.
(8) Not issuing receipts of tuition fees to the students and their parents.
(9) Choosing foul language against the members of the Managing Committee and disrespecting the authority of Bishop.
(10)The behaviour being not in the interest and welfare of the students.
(11)The conduct of unbecoming of a teacher.
(12)Filing of criminal complaints with police.
(13)Not conducting classes.
(14)Writing letters to the authorities and political parties even after suspension.
(15)Immodest behaviour and attitude towards lady teachers.
(16)Neglecting administrative, educational and financial matters.
5. While serving the charge-sheet (Exh. ‘J’) dated 18.05.2009 he was also informed that a committee consisting of two members was constituted and would hold its first meeting on 02.06.2009.
6. The petitioner by his communication dated 06.06.2009 (Exh. ‘K’) sought time of 10 days for giving a reply. He then submitted his detailed explanation dated 29.06.2009. Initially it is only the President that is the respondent No. 1 and one Mr. H.S. Sakhare, State Awardee Teacher were the members of the committee. However, subsequently in view of the provisions of the MEPS Act, the petitioner nominated his representative on Three Member Committee by suggesting name of one Mr. Subhash Ratansing Maher.
7. The enquiry then proceeded as usual. The witnesses were called and the petitioner was found guilty under different charges resulting in terminating his services.
8. The petitioner challenged the order of termination dated 20.10.2009 by filing an appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act bearing Appeal No. 30/2009 before the School Tribunal.
9. The Appeal was partly allowed on 22.03.2012 with following directions :
1. The Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The impugned dismissal order dated 22/10/2009 issued by respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. The impugned report dated 21/10/2009 is quashed and set aside.
4. The respondent management is directed to constitute inquiry committee to conduct inquiry against the appellant from the stage dated 20/10/2009 of earlier inquiry proceeding and the new inquiry committee to observe rule 37(4) to 37(6) of MEPS Rules while conducting the inquiry proceeding against the appellant.
5. Pending inquiry the a
