1

W.P.No.1507/13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.1507 OF 2013

Office Notes, Office

Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's

orders or directions

and

Registrar's

orders.

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr.P.S.Shendurnikar, advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.B.R.Kedar, advocate for Respondent No.l.

Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent

No.2.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

Date : 12.06.2013.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioners impugn the order passed the School

Tribunal, thereby, allowing the appeal filed by the present

Respondent No.1 and setting aside the termination, so also directing

the petitioners to reinstate the Respondent No.1 with full back

wages with continuity of service.

3.

Mr.Shendurnikar, learned counsel for the petitioners

contends that the inquiry conducted was legal and proper. It was as

per the Rules. The Inquiry Committee was also properly

constituted. Every opportunity was given to the Respondent No.1.

The Respondent No.1 engaged in adopting dilatory tactics. The

2

W.P.No.1507/13

copy of the charge-sheet was also served. On each and every stage,

proper opportunity was given. The Tribunal has committed an

error in coming to the conclusion that inquiry was not fair and

proper. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal has

not discussed the charges which are levelled against the Respondent

No.l and still, has erroneously held that punishment awarded to the

Respondent No.1 is disproportionate. The judgment of the Tribunal

is perverse. It has not properly appreciated the procedure followed

during inquiry and the evidence. The learned counsel in alternate

submits that if the Tribunal was of the opinion that inquiry is not

legal and proper then opportunity ought to have been given for

conducting fresh inquiry. The learned counsel submits that there is

no pleading about the back wages, still, the same has been awarded.

4.

Mr.Kedar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1

supports the order and submits that the Tribunal has properly

considered all the facets of the matter. The Respondent No.1 is

victimised. Even the copy of the charge-sheet was not served on

the Respondent No.1. The Inquiry Committee was not legal and

proper. Considering the said aspect, the Court has rightly set aside

the illegal termination order and directed reinstatement with the

consequential benefits. It is only after the Respondent No.1

legitimately started demanding B.Ed. pay-scale, the petitioners

started harassment of the Respondent No.l and levelled false

3

W.P.No.1507/13

allegations. The Tribunal has properly analysed the same.

5.

The fact that inquiry was not properly conducted and the

Inquiry Committee was not properly constituted is a finding of fact

arrived at by the Tribunal after discussing the documents on record.

The inquiry has to be conducted as per Rules 36 and 37 of the

MEPS Rules. The Tribunal has concluded that the said inquiry was

not proper and no proper opportunity was given to the present

Respondent No.1. The finding about the punishment being

disproportionate is without discussing the charges levelled and as

such the said finding to that extent can not be sustained.

6.

In light of the above, no error can be found in setting aside

the order of termination. The said part of the order need not be

interfered with.

7.

However, if the order of termination is set aside on the

ground that