Bombay High Court
Manohar S/O Mahadev Bhajikhaye vs Presiding Officer, School ... on 16 November, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp4109.14.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4109 OF 2014
Manohar s/o Mahadev Bhajikhaye,
Aged about 52 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o Village Mohgaon (Dhole),
Post Khapa (Ghudan),
Tah. Katol, Dist. Nagpur. ....... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1] Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Chandrapur,
Dist. Chandrapur.
2] Pradnyasheel Yuwak Shikshan
Mandal, Nagpur, through its Secretary
7, Rahtekadwadi, Dasra Road,
Mahal, Nagpur.
3] Gramin Vikas Vidyalaya,
Kakada, Tah. Karanja (Ghatge),
Dist. Wardha thr. its Head Master.
4] Education Officer (Sec.),
Zilla Parishad, Wardha. ....... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri B.H. Shambharkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 &
3.
Ms. P.N. Mehta, AGP for Respondent No.4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th NOVEMBER, 2016.
DATE: 16
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
wp4109.14.J.odt 2/4
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and
order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the School Tribunal dismissing
the Appeal No.14/2002 filed by the petitioner challenging his
termination from service by an order dated 22.01.2002, effected
after holding an enquiry in respect of charges levelled against him.
The School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the enquiry
conducted was legal and proper. Apart from this, the Tribunal has
relied upon certain documents, more particularly document No.81
dated 12.01.2002 containing the admission of the charges on the
part of the petitioner.
3] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing
for the parties, I have gone through the memo of appeal, written
statement and the finding recorded by the School Tribunal in the
order impugned. It is the specific case made out by the petitioner
in his memo of appeal that the enquiry against him was conducted
in respect of the charges on 26.11.2001 and 06.12.2001.
The procedure followed during the course of enquiry was that
instead of examining the witnesses to prove the charges levelled
against the petitioner, the petitioner was required to enter the
witness box first and his deposition was recorded. Thereafter, the
wp4109.14.J.odt 3/4
witnesses of the management were examined and the petitioner
was not given opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses.
Apparently, if this position is accepted or established then the
entire enquiry would be vitiated and the management will have to
be given opportunity to conduct de novo enquiry from the stage it
stood vitiated. This aspect has not been gone into by the School
Tribunal. Prima facie so called admissions given by the petitioner
were subsequent to the enquiry conducted and its impact will
have to be considered on the proof of the charges levelled and the
findings recorded by the enquiry committee. Obviously, the
findings of the enquiry committee are not based upon any such
admissions. All such aspects need to be considered by the Tribunal
afresh.
4] For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 18.01.2014 passed by the
School Tribunal in Appeal No.14/2002 is hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the School Tribunal to
decide the appeal afresh keeping in view the observations made
by this Court. The parties to appear before the School Tribunal
on 28.11.2016. No fresh notices shall be issued to the parties.
wp4109.14.J.odt 4/4
5] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to
costs. The School Tribunal to decide the appeal within a period of
eight months from the date of first appearance of the parties.
The Tribunal shall provide the parties an opportunity to lead oral
evidence if it is so demanded.
JUDGE
NSN
