Bombay High Court
Mahatma Phule Magas Wargiya ... vs Shri Vishnu Laxman Kasare And 2 ... on 21 November, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp6069.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.6069 of 2014
1. Mahatma Phule Magas Wargiya
Mandal, Mindala, through its
Secretary,
At PO : Village Mindala,
Tahsil Nagbhir, District Chandrapur.
2. Headmaster,
Sant Hardas Vidyalaya,
At PO : Mindala, Tahsil Nagbhir,
District Chandrapur.
3. Shri Pandurang Kachrooji Khandale,
Aged about 75 years,
President, Mahatma Phule Magas
Wargiya Mandal,
At PO : Mindala, Tahsil Nagbhir,
District Chandrapur. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Vishnu Laxman Kasare,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation - Not Known
(Terminated temporary employee),
Resident of Mindala, Tahsil Nagbhir,
District Chandrapur.
2. Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur.
3. Learned Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Chandrapur. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2016 00:39:45 :::
2
wp6069.14.odt
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri Ritu V. Kalia, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2
and 3.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
Dated : 21st November, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
2. The School Tribunal, by its impugned judgment and order
dated 30-8-2014 passed in Appeal No.STC 31/2005, has set aside the
order of termination dated 29-4-2005 and directed reinstatement of
the respondent No.1 in service along with full back wages. The matter
was heard by this Court and the order was passed on 28-9-2015,
which is reproduced below :
" Heard Shri A.R. Patil, advocate for the petitioners,
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, advocate for respondent no.1 and
Ms. A.R. Taywade, A.G.P. for respondents 2 and 3.
The submission on behalf of the petitioner-Management
wp6069.14.odt
is that the enquiry against the respondent no.1-employee was
unnecessarily protracted by the respondent no.1 and in view of
the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition
No.698/2005, the enquiry was required to be completed within
stipulated time and, therefore, it was necessary to stop the
respondent no.1 from protracting the enquiry. It is submitted
that the Tribunal has overlooked this aspect which has resulted
in the erroneous order.
Considering the facts of the case, it would be appropriate
to keep the petition pending and pass the following order :
(i) The petitioner-Management is permitted to continue the
enquiry from the stage at which it stopped. The enquiry shall
be completed within two months.
(ii) The respondent no.1 shall be treated to be in service
w.e.f. 28th September, 2015 i.e. today.
(iii) The petitioner-Management shall pay the regular salary
of the respondent No.1-employee from 28th September, 2015.
(iv) List the petition for further consideration on
30th November, 2015."
It is reported that accordingly the respondent No.1 has been reinstated
in service on the post of Assistant Teacher and he is getting regular
salary. The question is of validity of termination and payment of back
wages to him. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel for the
wp6069.14.odt
respondent No.1, submits that if the respondent No.1 is treated to be
continued in service, then he would also be entitled to increments and
other allowances, which would be available to him as a regular
employee. He further submits that the payment of salary is not
inclusive of regular increments, and the revision in the pay-scale has
also not been made applicable.
3. It is not necessary for this Court now to adjudicate on the
question of correctness or otherwise of the decision given by the
Tribunal, which is impugned in this petition, as the learned counsels
appearing for the parties submit that the enquiry as per the aforesaid
order passed by this Court, has already been commenced and the
respondent No.1 is participating in the enquiry. The entitlement of
the respondent No.1 regarding payment of regular salary inclusive of
increments and revision as well as back wages shall depend upon the
outcome of the enquiry, which is initiated. Both the learned counsels
agree that the respondent No.1 shall be continued in service pending
the enquiry and shall be paid in the same fashion in which he is being
paid after his reinstatement in service. Under the MEPS Rules, the
enquiry is required to be completed within a period of 120 days.
Hence, both the parties submit that the period of 120 days shall start
wp6069.14.odt
running from today for completing the enquiry. If the respondent
No.1 has any objections in the matter of conducting of enquiry by the
petitioners, he shall put his objections in writing for that purpose. It is
expected from the Management to provide appropriate opportunity to
the respondent No.1 in conducting of enquiry, as ultimately it would
also be a burden to the Management if it is found that the enquiry is
vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure
prescribed under the MEPS Rules. The respondent No.1 is also
expected to co-operate the Management in early disposal of the
enquiry and the workable order can be passed by this Court disposing
of this petition.
4. In the result, the petition is disposed of by following order :
(i) The enquiry initiated against the respondent No.1 as
per the order dated 28-9-2015 passed by this Court shall be
completed within a period of 120 days to be commenced
from today.
(ii) The respondent No.1 shall continue in service till the
ultimate order of punishment, if any, is passed by the
wp6069.14.odt
Management after completion of enquiry and he shall
continue to get regular salary every month in the same
fashion in which he is being paid from the date of
reinstatement after the decision of the School Tribunal.
(iii) The entitlement of the respondent No.1 to back
wages, increments and revision in the pay-scale shall depend
upon the outcome of the enquiry.
(iv) The respondent No.1 shall co-operate the
Management in conclusion of the enquiry within a period of
120 days and shall put all his objections in writing before the
Enquiry Committee.
(v) Needless to say that it shall be open for the
respondent No.1 to raise all such objections to the validity of
the proceedings, as are permissible in law, in any appeal, in
the event if it is required to be filed against the ultimate
decision by the Management.
wp6069.14.odt
(vi) Appeal No.STC 31/2005 pending before the School
Tribunal stands disposed of.
5. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
