Bombay High Court
Yuvak Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, ... vs Sau. Geeeta Sulil Telgote And ... on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
-1- 28.WP.5703.2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5703 OF 2022
Yuvak Bharti Shikshan Sanstha Pulgaon
Vs.
Sau. Geeta Sunil Telgote & Anr.
************************************************************************************************
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
************************************************************************************************
Mr. Firdos Mirza, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Thakare, Advocate h/f. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent
No.1/Caveator.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2022.
Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order
dated 11.03.2022, passed by the School Tribunal at
Chandrapur, whereby appeal filed by the respondent No.1 has
been allowed, setting aside order of dismissal, directing
reinstatement with consequential benefits, as also 75% back
wages and reserving liberty for the petitioner to initiate de novo
inquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
liberty reserved for the petitioner is rendered meaningless
because the respondent No.1 admittedly had superannuated in
April, 2022.
-2- 28.WP.5703.2022.odt
4. It is submitted that in the present case, the Tribunal
has allowed the appeal essentially on three grounds. Firstly, that
charge-sheet was not issued to the respondent No.1, observing
that although the covering letter was signed, the charge-sheet
was not signed on behalf of the petitioner. Secondly, it was held
that the inquiry was rendered defective because it was
conducted only by two members and request made by the
respondent for accepting the nomination of her representative,
was not acceded to. Thirdly, it was found that part of the
inquiry proceedings were conducted during the period of
vacation.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
all the three grounds are unsustainable, for the reason that the
relevant rule of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, requires service of charge-
sheet and it is nowhere necessary that the said document must
necessarily be signed on behalf of the petitioner - Management
and in any case in the present matter, the covering letter did
bear the signature of the responsible person of the petitioner -
Management. It was further submitted that being headmistress,
the respondent No.1 was not entitled to vacations and that
there was material to show that she, in fact, attended duty
during the period of vacation. It was further submitted that
once the respondent No.1 failed to nominate her representative
on the Inquiry Committee within 15 days as required under
Section 36(3) of the aforesaid Rules, as per the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State
-3- 28.WP.5703.2022.odt
of Maharashtra and others reported in 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 826, the
two member Inquiry Committee was deemed to be constituted
and therefore, it could not be said that the Inquiry Committee
was rendered defective.
6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
14th October, 2022.
7. Copies of documents handed over by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, are taken on record. Copy of the same
has already been served on the learned counsel appearing on
caveat for respondent No.1.
8. Hamdast granted for service on respondent No.2.
9. In the meanwhile and till the next date of listing,
there shall be ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause (b).
JUDGE
Vijay
Digitally Signed By:VIJAY KUMAR
Personal Assistant
to Hon'ble JUDGE
Signing Date:20.09.2022 19:11
