2025:BHC-NAG:8685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 8312 OF 2022

Girdhar S/o Anandrao Thaori, PETITIONER

Aged about 53 years, Occ. Nil,

R/o Haladgaon, Tah. Samudrapur,

District Wardha

VERSUS

1 President, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan RESPONDENTS

Sanstha, Bidkar Ward, Hinganghat, Dist.

Wardha

2 Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan

Sanstha, Bidkar Ward, Hinganghat,

Dist. Wardha, Shri Anil S/o Atmaram

Jawade, Aged about 59 years, R/o Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha

3 The Head Master, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Vidyalaya, Bidkar Ward, Hinganghat,

Dist. Wardha

4 The Education Officer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Wardha

Mr. Sagar K. Lambat, Adv. h/f Mr. K.K. Lambat, Advocate for

petitioner

Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. N.S. Khandewale,

Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1463 OF 2020

1 President, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan PETITIONERS

Sanstha, Hinganghat, District Wardha

2 Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat, District Wardha, Shri Anil S/o Atmaram Jawade, Aged about 59 years, R/o Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha

3 The Head Master, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Vidyalaya, Hinganghat, District Wardha VERSUS

1 Girdhar S/o Anandrao Thaori, RESPONDENTS Aged about 53 years, Occ. Service R/o Haladgaon, Tah. Samudrapur, District Wardha

2 The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Wardha Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. S.V. Narale, AGP for Respondent / State CORAM: SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 5^th AUGUST, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in these petitions is to the order rendered by the School Tribunal allowing the appeal presented by the employee i.e. petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8312/2022, setting aside the order of termination with direction to reinstate and pay the back-wages to the extent of 50%, whereas, the employee has presented the petition seeking 100% back-wages.

3. The teacher, appointed in the year 1991 after due procedure of law, eventually attained the status of permanency by virtue of operation of Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services Regulation Act, 1977) [For short “MEPS Act”]. However, in the wake of the registration of crime on 06.04.1994, the employee, came to be detained. Based on the registration of the FIR and eventual arrest, the order of termination was served on the employee on 30.11.1998. The order of termination is in the wake of registration of the crime and eventual arrest of the petitioner from 06.04.1994 to 10.04.1994. Since the offence of moral turpitude was registered against the employee, the management resolved to terminate the services of the employee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the termination, the employee presented an appeal before the School Tribunal. During interregnum, the trial commenced on the basis of the registration of the FIR concluded into acquittal of the employee on 24.12.2002. The appeal presented by the employee was resisted by the management by submitting its detailed written statement wherein an attempt was made to justify the termination of the employee owing to the threat of the students and their parents stating that in the event of the continuation of service by employer, they would withdraw the students enrolled in the school. Although, the management has an independent authority to conduct the enquiry to ascertain the charges of misconduct, however, their written statement is silent about such averments in that regard. An attempt is made to justify the termination principally on the ground of registration of FIR, arrest and the threat by the parents to withdraw the students enrolled in the school.

5. The School Tribunal while considering the claims and rival claims put-forth by the litigating sides, has framed the issue in relation to the appointment of the petitioner as per Section 5 of the ME