Shabnoor/VRJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9966 OF 2019 VAIBHAV Abhyudaya Dnyanvardhini Sanstha RAMESH JADHAV Through Its President/ Secretary & Anr. … Petitioners Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH V/s.

JADHAV Date: 2025.02.24 15:54:00 +0530 Chandrakant Shrirang Gaikar & Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13794 OF 2024 Abhyudaya Dnyanvardhini Sanstha Through Its President/Secretary & Anr. … Applicants In the matter between Abhyudaya Dnyanvardhini Sanstha … Petitioners Through Its President/Secretary & Anr.

V/s.

Chandrakant Shrirang Gaikar & Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.15870 OF 2024 Chandrakant Shrirang Gaikar … Applicant In the matter between Abhyudaya Dnyanvardhini Sanstha … Petitioners Through Its President/Secretary & Anr.

V/s.

Chandrakant Shrirang Gaikar & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Satyajeet A. Rajeshirke with Prashant Kulkarni a/w Shubham Vasekar a/w Gautam Kulkarni for the petitioners.

Ms. Jui Kanade a/w Shivani Samel a/w Shruti Tulpule for respondent No.1.

Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for State – respondent Nos.2 & 3.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2025 JUDGMENT.:

1. This Petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the judgment and order dated 2 August 2019 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No.7 of 2018. By the impugned decision, the Tribunal was pleased to allow the Appeal instituted by Respondent No.1, thereby setting aside the order of termination dated 23 February 2018 (effective from 24 February 2018).

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Petition, briefly stated, are as follows:

(i) According to the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 has been serving as an Assistant Teacher in the institution since 14 June 1999. It is their case that from 21 January 2000 until 13 May 2013, several memoranda were issued to Respondent No.1 to caution him about his alleged misconduct, inappropriate behavior, and failure to adhere to the discipline expected of a teacher. It is further asserted that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Respondent No.1 from 2007 to 2013 contained adverse remarks, indicative of repeated lapses. Despite such adverse reports, the Petitioners extended salary increments and other emoluments to Respondent No.1, abiding by the relevant rules and regulations. They maintain that these increments were granted in the hope that Respondent No.1 would rectify his conduct and to avoid any arbitrariness or victimization.

(ii) On 13 June 2013, Respondent No.1 is stated to have addressed complaints to as many as nineteen different authorities, including the police, levelling allegations of a serious but allegedly baseless nature against the management. The Petitioners contend that these complaints caused considerable harassment to the Headmaster as well as the Managing Committee, thereby affecting the working environment.

(iii) Owing to this conduct, the Petitioners initiated minor disciplinary action by issuing Respondent No.1 a penalty of withholding one increment for a period of one year from 1 July 2013, which was subsequently restored in the following year. On 12 December 2013, Respondent No.2–Education Inspector directed Respondent No.1 to abide by the instructions issued by the Headmaster and the Management, to focus on academic responsibilities, and to refrain from lodging complaints without following the prescribed procedure.

(iv) On 27 July 2014, a statement of allegations was furnished to Respondent No.1, culminating in the initiation of an inquiry on 16 October 2014. The Petitioners aver that Respondent No.1 did not participate in the inquiry despite being accorded opportunities, a conduct that eventually led the inquiry committee to hold the charges against him as proved and recommend termination. Consequently, on 18 October 2014, Respondent No.1’s services were terminated.

3. Aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.39 of 2014 b