Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 21
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANGESH S. PATIL, J
Fr. Peter Thamaji Amolik – Appellant
Versus
The President, Saint Francis De-Sales Education Society (SFS School) – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7916 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S. P. Pandav
For the Respondents: Mr. V.S. Kadam, Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
The court confirmed that serious misconduct allegations against educators warrant termination despite procedural errors in the enquiry, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Education sector employment and conduct regulations - Challenge against termination on grounds of misconduct including moral turpitude and inappropriate behavior - The court underscores the necessity for adherence to principles of natural justice during enquiry proceedings - Charges proved through testimonies despite procedural lapses. (Paras 6, 22, 26, 27)
(B) Misconduct - Judicial observations on the appropriateness of behavior expected of professional educators, as applied in this case to the headmaster's severe misdemeanors - The court affirms that certain allegations constitute misconduct justifying termination. (Paras 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a headmaster, challenged his termination after being accused of various serious charges including being under the influence of alcohol and engaging in moral turpitude throughout his employment. The enquiry into these charges was contested on procedural grounds.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while there were procedural shortcomings, the substantial proof against the petitioner warranted the appropriate sanction of termination, based on the severity of conduct unbecoming of an educational leader.
Issues: The main questions were the procedures followed during the enquiry, the charges substantiating misconduct, and adherence to natural justice principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court illustrated that inadequate procedural compliance does not invalidate findings of wrongdoing when substantial evidence demonstrates misconduct worthy of severe penalties in educational environments.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedures for appointment and charges against the headmaster. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding due process in the enquiry. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on compliance and procedural integrity. (Para 14 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. assessment of misconduct and justification for termination. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 5. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 28 , 29) |
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 student
(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
