Bombay High Court
Mahesh Vidya Prasarak Shikshan ... vs Shri. Kailash S/O. Ramchandrarao ... on 16 June, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.1.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1 OF 2016
01] Mahesh Vidya Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha,
Jawahar Nagar, through its Secretrary,
Smt. Shailaja Shailesh Daburkar,
Aged 42 years, Office at Plot No.312,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
02] The Head Master,
Vikas Vidyalaya, Parsodi (Khapri),
Wardha Road, Nagpur (Now renamed
as Mahatma Gandhi High School,
Hudkeshwar Road, Pipla, Nagpur) .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
01] Shri Kailash s/o Ramchandrarao Shrirame,
Aged about 47 years, Occupation : Nil,
R/o MHADA Colony, Near Bornala,
Katol Road, Nagpur.
02] The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
03] The Hon'ble Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Nagpur. .... Respondents
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JUNE 16, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:04:29 :::
wp.1.16.jud 2
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
02] This petition takes an exception to the judgment and
order dated 18/09/2015 passed by learned Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'
for short) in Appeal No.STN-30/2010 thereby partly allowing the
appeal and setting aside the termination order of respondent
no.1.
03] The facts necessary for decision of the petition may
be stated in brief as under :
i. Petitioner no.1 is an Education Society. On
12/02/1993, respondent no.1 was appointed as
Assistant Teacher by the earlier management. The
grievance was that appointment of respondent no.1
was back door entry as no advertisement was issued
and prior permission of Education Officer was not
obtained. On 21/08/2007, Deputy Director of
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:04:29 :::
wp.1.16.jud 3
Education issued order of transfer of management of
school in favour of petitioner no.1-society.
ii. Four criminal proceedings were instituted against
respondent no.1. Allegations were that respondent
no.1 and other teachers were totally hostile as they
were interested to take over management. The
grievance of various commissions and omissions
constituting serious misconduct were also made
against respondent no.1 and an explanation was
sought from respondent no.1. Same was not found to
be satisfactory. As a result, departmental proceedings
were initiated against him and he was placed under
suspension.
iii. Respondent no.1 filed Writ Petition No.1110/2009
challenging the order of suspension. The petition
came to be partly allowed. As per the directions of
the Court, Enquiry Committee was reconstituted and
subsistence allowance was paid to respondent no.1 as
per 6th Pay Commission.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:04:29 :::
wp.1.16.jud 4
iv. On 07/04/2010, two member Enquiry Committee
submitted report holding that charges were proved
against respondent no.1 and recommended
punishment of termination. The order of termination
was issued by management on 21/04/2010. Against
the order of termination, respondent no.1 filed Appeal
No. STN No.30/2010 before the Tribunal. Vide
impugned judgment and order, appeal came to be
partly allowed. Hence, the instant petition.
04] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, this Court has gone through the judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal. The basic consideration is reflected in
paragraph 22 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus :
"22. As per aforesaid discussion, it appears that
appellant has proved that his appointment was made
as per Section 5 of M.E.P.S. Act and Rules thereunder
and an impugned termination order dated 21/04/2010
is illegal and contrary to law. Hence, I record my
findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative."
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:04:29 :::
wp.1.16.jud 5
05] Learned Presiding Officer has not recorded findings
that enquiry was vitiated on account of violation of any
mandatory provision prescribed for holding enquiry. No finding is
recorded that principles of natural justice have been violated. It
is apparent from the reasonings recorded by learned Presiding
Officer that submission of both the parties were mentioned in the
judgment and without considering those submissions in the light
of the material placed on record, learned Presiding Officer came
to the conclusion that impugned termination is illegal and
contrary to the law. In the absence of proper reasoning,
impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding
Officer of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. Interference is
thus warranted in the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
I. Writ Petition No.1 of 2016 is partly allowed.
II. Impugned order dated 18/09/2015 passed in Appeal
No. STN-30/2010 passed by the School Tribunal is
hereby quashed and set aside.
III. Tribunal to decide appeal in accordance with the law
within a period of four months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
IV. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27 th June,
2017.
V. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as
to costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
