Bombay High Court
Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha Thr. ... vs The Presiding Officer, School ... on 6 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2897.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2897 OF 2012
1) Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha,
At & Post Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur (Through its
Secretary).
2) Yashwantrao Shinde Vidyalaya Chichordi,
Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur
(Through its Headmaster) .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur.
2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
3) Rakesh s/o Rajesh Giradkar,
Aged about 35 years,
C/o Sanjay Kirana Stores, New
Sumthana, Tq. Bhadrawati, District
Chandrapur.
4) Ku. S.F. Saed,
Assistant Teacher,
Yashwantrao Shinde Vidyalaya, Chichordi,
Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::
2 wp2897.12
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2,
Shri S.G. Malode, Advocate for the respondent No.3
None for the respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 6
JUNE, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners/
employer, Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent No.2-Education Officer and Shri S.G. Malode, Advocate for
the respondent No.3/employee.
The respondent No.1-Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Chandrapur is formal party.
None appears for the respondent No.4.
2. The judgment which I propose to pass will not prejudice
the respondent No.4 and therefore, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.
3. The respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Teacher
in the school administered by the petitioner No.1-Society, by the order
3 wp2897.12
dated 23-08-1999. The respondent No.3 joined the service on
24-08-1999. The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Tribunal on
19-01-2000 contending that he was not permitted to sign the muster
roll with effect from 17-01-2000 and it amounted to otherwise
termination.
The employer opposed the claim of the respondent No.3.
According to the employer, the services of respondent No.3 are
terminated on 27-01-2000. According to the employer, the work of
respondent No.3 was not satisfactory and therefore, his services were
terminated. The School Tribunal considered the pleadings and
documents placed on the record and by the impugned order concluded
that the termination of services of the respondent No.3 is illegal. The
Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate the respondent No.3 with
continuity of service and to pay the arrears of salary from 17-01-2000.
The employer being aggrieved by the above order, has filed this writ
petition.
4. The learned Advocate for the employer has submitted that
the work of the respondent No.3 was not satisfactory and therefore,
the employer was well within its right to remove the respondent No.3
who was a probationer.
4 wp2897.12
It is undisputed that the respondent No.3 is working as
Subject Resources Person with the office of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli
from 06-01-2007.
5. The employer has placed on record the copy of
termination notice dated 27-01-2000 and copy of complaint alleged to
have been made by female employees working in the school, on
15-02-2000 to support the contention that the removal of the
respondent No.3 is proper. The employer has not been able to show
that show cause notice was given to the respondent No.3 before 27-01-
2000 i.e. before issuing the termination notice. It being undisputed
that the respondent No.3 was appointed on probation, in normal
course it was necessary for the employer to continue the respondent
No.3 as probationer for the entire period of probation and if the
employer felt that the continuation of the respondent No.3 in the
school for the entire period of probation was not in the interests of the
institution, the employer should have given show cause notice and
conducted an enquiry before removing the respondent No.3 by
curtailing the probation period. As the employer has not taken steps
according to law, the decision of the employer to terminate the services
of the respondent No.3 is illegal. The Tribunal has rightly quashed the
5 wp2897.12
decision of the employer to terminate the services of the respondent
No.3.
6. The issue which is required to be adverted to at this stage
is whether the directions given by the Tribunal to the employer to
reinstate the respondent No.3 in service and to pay the arrears of
salary, are proper. Considering the proposition laid down in the
judgment given in the case of Bharatiya Gramin Punarrachana
Sanstha vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported on 2003(1) Mh.L.J.
563 and the fact that the respondent No.3 is employed since
06-01-2007, the interests of justice would be sub-served by passing the
following order :
i) The decision of the employer to terminate the services of
the respondent No.3 is quashed.
ii) The directions given by the Tribunal to the employer to
reinstate the respondent No.3 with continuity of service
and to pay the entire back wages are set aside and in lieu
of it the employer is directed to pay the arrears of salary
(basic + emoluments) of the respondent No.3 for the
period from 17-01-2000 till 22-08-2001, that is date on
which the respondent No.3 would have completed the
6 wp2897.12
probation period. The amount shall be paid by the
employer to the respondent No.3 within two months. If
the amount is not paid within two months, the employer
shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above
amount to the respondent No.3 from the date of this
judgment till the amount is paid to the respondent No.3.
iii) The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above
extent.
iv) The petition is partly allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
pma
