Bombay High Court
Prakash Ganpat Mode vs President/Secretary-Mumbai Pradesh ... on 12 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:11648
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5381 OF 2006
Prakash Ganpat Mode ...Petitioner
V/s.
1. President /Secretary
Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya
Sabha, Ghatkopar, Mumbai.
2. Shri V.S. Gurukul Technical High
School & Junior College (through
Incharge Headmaster),
Ghatkopar, Mumbai.
3. The Deputy Director,
Vocational Education & Training
Regional Office, Bandra, Mumbai. ...Respondents
______________
Mr. Prakash Ganpat Mode Petitioner in-person, present.
Ms. Anupama Shah with Ms. Mitaali M. Shah for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent No.3-State.
______________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on: 28 February 2025.
Judgment pronounced on: 12 March 2025.
Judgment :
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
1) Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging judgment
and order dated 12 June 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing Appeal No.12 of 2005 filed
by the Petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 27
January 2005.
2) Mumbai Pradesh Arya Vidya Sabha, a registered Trust,
which runs several educational institutions, including V.S.
Gurukul Technical High School and Junior College, Ghatkopar,
Mumbai. Petitioner was appointed as a Headmaster of
Respondent No.2-School /College on 10 July 1995. Respondent-
Trust also runs Shri Gautam Kumar Vadilal Gandhi Gurukul
Industrial Training Centre at Ghatkopar. It is Petitioner's case
that he was orally entrusted the additional charge of the said
industrial training center without any extra remuneration.
Respondent sought approval for appointment of Petitioner as
Headmaster initially for 1995-96 and then for 1996-97, which
was accorded by Respondent No.3-Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training. After assessment of Petitioner's
abilities, Respondent No.1 sought further approval for
appointment of Petitioner on permanent basis as Headmaster of
Respondent No.2-School /College from 1997-98 onwards and the
same was granted by the Deputy Director.
3) While functioning as Headmaster of Respondent No.2-
School/College, statement of allegations dated 21 December 2002
was served on the Petitioner, which was received by him on 28
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
December 2002. Respondent No.1 issued charge-sheet to the
Petitioner alleging total 5 charges against him. Enquiry was
conducted by the enquiry committee into the charges. In the
meantime, Petitioner was suspended on 23 March 2003.
Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1451 of 2003 challenging the
charge-sheet and the suspension. Writ Petition No.1451 of 2003
was admitted, in which Petitioner took out Notice of Motion
alleging non-payment of subsistence allowance and seeking his
reinstatement by revocation of suspension. Petitioner was paid
subsistence allowance @ 50% of his salary as a result of orders
passed by this Court. In the meantime, enquiry committee
started the enquiry proceedings. According to the Petitioner, the
enquiry was conducted in gross violation of provisions of
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules). Petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.1588 of 2004 challenging the authority of another
teacher to sign as Principal. This Court directed completion of
enquiry in a time bound manner. At the end of the enquiry, the
management issued order dated 27 January 2005 terminating
the Petitioner from service. Petitioner filed Appeal No.12 of 2005
before the School Tribunal. He also filed an application for stay
before the Tribunal, which was allowed on 14 February 2005.
The management filed Writ Petition No.611 of 2005 challenging
the stay order passed by the Tribunal, which was disposed of
with consent of both the parties by recording arrangement for
payment of subsistence allowance to the Petitioner during
pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. It was further
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
ordered that the management could substantiate the charges of
misconduct by leading evidence before the Tribunal. Accordingly,
the management applied before the Tribunal for leading
evidence, which request was allowed by the Tribunal.
Respondent-management accordingly led evidence before the
School Tribunal. After considering the pleadings and evidence on
record, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Appeal
preferred by the Petitioner. Aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal,
Petitioner has filed the present Petition. By order dated 12
January 2007, this Court admitted the Petition and rejected the
prayer for interim relief. Petition is called out for final hearing.
4) I have heard Petitioner-in-person and Ms. Shah, the
learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-
Management. I have also gone through the findings recorded by
the School Tribunal as well as the evidence and other documents
placed on record.
5) It appears that Petitioner faced following charges in the
enquiry instituted against him by the Respondent-Management:
1. Mr. Mode accepted Dy. Conductorship of H.S.C. Board,
Mumbai for February 2002 examination. Knowing that his
daughter was appearing for the same examination. He
neither informed the H.S.C. Board nor the Management.
H.S.C. Board, after confirming the facts wrote to the school
Management to take disciplinary action as stipulated in
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Regulation Act, 1981. It is therefore decided to take
action under provision 28.5(a) of this misconduct.
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
2. The Management has repeatedly asked Shri Mode to attend
school when all training activities are on during 7.20 a.m. to
2.50 p.m. everyday. But he avoided obeying the same.
Hence, his act is liable for punishment under section 27(5)(c)
i.e. willful and persistent negligence of duty.
3. a) Mr. Mode has behaved rudely and arrogantly with office
bearers of the Management and School Committee members
of Shri V.S. Gurukul Technical High School and Vocational
Jr. College.
b) He has purposefully not submitted some important
letters from the Dy. Director to the Management. So, he has
lost the confidence of the School Committee and
Management. It is, therefore, not possible to continue him as
the HM in present post.
c) Also as stipulated in the Maharashtra. Employees of
Pvt. School Rule 1981, he has not efficiently carried out
duties and responsibilities of Head Master under Rule Duties
with regard to general, 22 (1) (2). Duties with regard to
general administrative matters, "Schedule 'I' rule 22(1)(a)" be
responsible to Management for the smooth and efficient
functioning of the school. So he is liable for punishment
under said rules under provisions of 28(5)(d) incompetence.
He has always been creating conflicts with Management
instead of co-operation with Management.
a) There are persistent serious complaints from the staff
against Mr. Mode, which shows that he is not able to impart
duties and responsibilities as Head Master efficiently. So he
is liable for punishment under Rule 28 (9) (5).
b) His relations with other Principals and Heads of Gurukul
Educational Institutions are not cordial and he had been
rude to them. This invites action under MEPS Regulation
Act, 1977.
c) His behaviour with outside people is also very rude and
arrogant. This is evident from the fact that all 160
moderators complained against him on 15/03/2001 during
the period of assessment camp for Physics. This invites
action under MEPS Regulation Act, 1977.
5) Mr. Mode did not follow the duties of Head in relation to
educational matter "Schedule 'I' rule 22 (1) (b)" and provision
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
21 work load case (3). Therefore, he is violating the
provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Pvt. School and it is
liable for punishment under provision of 28 (5) (c) i.e. willful
of persistent negligence of duties.
6) The above charges are held to be proved by the enquiry
committee, which has led to passing of termination order dated
27 January 2005. Ms. Shah has taken me through evidence of
the witnesses led before the School Tribunal in support of her
contention that all the charges are fully justified by such
evidence.
7) Perusal of the charges levelled against the Petitioner
would essentially indicate that the same are not very grave or
serious in nature. The first charge was about acceptance of
Deputy Conductorship by the Petitioner of H.S.C. Board,
Mumbai for February 2002 examination though his daughter
was appearing for the same examination. It appears that the
H.S.C. Board directed the school management to initiate
disciplinary action against the Petitioner for his misconduct.
Even if the misconduct alleged in Charge No.1 is accepted to be
proved, the same does not constitute grave misconduct so as to
entail punishment of termination. There is no allegation that
Petitioner's role as Deputy Conductor of Examination resulted in
any undue favour for his daughter. Maybe the conduct of the
Petitioner was against propriety, and he ought to have either
recused from the position or at least informed the H.S.C. Board
and the management before accepting the position as Deputy
Conductor of Examination. However, such impropriety on the
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
part of the Petitioner has admittedly not resulted in undue
favour for his daughter. In my view therefore, Charge No.1 was
not serious enough for entailing the harsh punishment of
termination.
8) Charge No.2 was with regard to avoidance on the part of
the Petitioner to attend the School during prescribed time of 7.20
a.m. to 2.50 p.m. It appears that the Petitioner instead used to
attend the school from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. Petitioner was
functioning as Headmaster since the year 1995 and the charge
does not make it apparent as to the period during which he used
to attend the school from 10.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. If he was
attending the school at the above time right since 1995, whether
he could be punished with severe penalty of termination in the
year 2005 becomes questionable. There is no allegation that
Petitioner's change of time of duties affected running of the
school in any manner. Petitioner was Head of the school and it
also becomes questionable as to whether his physical presence
was required during the entire time when training was being
imparted to the students of the school. As a Head of the school
Petitioner was also required to perform various administrative
duties. In my view therefore, the second charge relating to not
attending School during training hours is again not serious
enough to entail punishment of dismissal.
9) So far as Charge No.3 is concerned, the same related to
rude and arrogant behaviour of Petitioner towards management
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
and school committee. The charge is vague and lacked material
particulars. The exact incidents of alleged rude behaviour were
not indicated in the charge-sheet. Though the charge was
completely vague, it appears that the Respondent-management
examined Jayesh Navnitlal Vora, honorary secretary of
Respondent No.1-State. His evidence before the Tribunal would
indicate that he levelled vague allegations against the Petitioner
that 'appellant was very rude and arrogant towards staff member
of the school.' He further stated in his evidence that he had a
personal work with Petitioner on 26 December 2001 and at that
time, Petitioner alleged that management was whimsical and
banged the door and went away. Respondent-management
examined Jayanthilal Gambhirdas Parikh, trustee and secretary
of the Trust, who deposed that above complaints were received
against the Petitioner. His evidence does not bear out any
element of rude behaviour towards office bearers of the
management or the school committee. Thus, apart from Charge
No.3 being vague, lacking material particulars, no evidence is
produced on record to indicate any gross behaviour on the part of
the Petitioner towards the office bearers of the management and
the school committee. Mere calling the management as
whimsical and banging the door would not constitute serious
misconduct so as to attract the punishment of termination. The
second part of the Charge No.3 is about non-submission of
important letters from Deputy Director to the management
leading to loss of confidence of the school committee and the
management. In the charge itself, the decision was taken not to
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
continue Petitioner as Headmaster of the school. Thus, in the
charge itself, the proposed penalty was decided. The charge
again is absolutely vague and no particulars about the exact
letters of Deputy Director, which Petitioner allegedly did not
forward to the management, are indicated. There is no allegation
of cause of any prejudice to the management on account of
Petitioner not bringing letters of Deputy Director to its notice.
The third part of Charge No.3 is about non-efficient performance
of duties and responsibilities of Headmaster under Rule 22(1)
and (2) of the MEPS Rules. It is further alleged that Petitioner
always created conflicts with the management instead of co-
operating with it. This charge is completely vague and no
particulars about non-performance of exact duties and
responsibilities are borne out from the charge-sheet. If such
vague charge is allowed to be levelled, every management would
include such vague charge against its teacher and expand the
horizons of the enquiry by including anything and everything
while leading evidence against the delinquent teacher. On the
ground of vagueness of Charge No.3(c), no punishment could
have been imposed on the Petitioner. Thus, all the three
elements of Charge No. 3 are either vague or not so serious so as
to entail punishment of termination.
10) Charge No.4 is again in three parts. The first part of
Charge No.4 is about receipt of serious complaints of staff
showing Petitioner's inability to impart duties and
responsibilities of Headmaster efficiently. Here again, no
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
particulars of complaints are given in the charge-sheet. To prove
this charge, Respondent-management examined several teaching
and non-teaching staff before the School Tribunal. I have gone
through their depositions minutely. Most of the allegations
levelled by other teachers were about alleged indifferent attitude
of the Petitioner towards management and Petitioner's anguish
about Mr. Patil acting as vice principal. It appears that entire
episode started when Petitioner proposed name of Mr. N.C.
Kurane for the post of Vice Principal, which was not agreed by
the management, which proposed the name of Mr. Santosh
Narayan Patil, which Petitioner refused to accept. Thus, there
was disagreement between Petitioner and management about
the teacher who could be appointed as Vice Principal. The
depositions of teaching and non-teaching staff bear out this
disagreement with regard to Mr. Patil functioning as Vice
Principal. Mr. Santosh Patil is one of the witnesses examined,
who obviously had an axe to grind against the Petitioner on
account of his opposition to Mr. Patil functioning as Vice
Principal. After going through the depositions of the witnesses,
even if the statements made therein are taken as gospel truth, it
becomes difficult to believe that conduct of the Petitioner was so
gross that his immediate termination from service was
warranted.
11) Charge Nos.4(b) and (c) are with regard to Petitioner's
interactions with teachers alleging that he used to be very rude
and arrogant during such interactions. Apart from the fact that
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
the allegations are vague, mere rude behaviour with outsiders
may not ipso facto constitute grave misconduct so as to entail
harsh punishment of termination from service.
12) Fifth charge is with regard to failure to follow the duties
of Head in relation to educational matters, which is akin to
Charge No.3 discussed above. Charge No.5 is again absolutely
vague and lacks material particulars.
13) The conspectus of the above discussion is that none of the
charges levelled against the Petitioner are serious enough to
attract a harsh penalty against him. Even cumulative effect of all
the five charges makes it difficult to believe that Petitioner
deserved the penalty of termination from service. The
punishment of termination imposed on the Petitioner appears, to
my mind, to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct
alleged and proved. The management could have imposed lesser
penalty than termination on the Petitioner. Under Rule 31 of the
MEPS Rules, several punishments other than termination have
been prescribed. Punishment of termination entails loss of
retirement benefits for the Petitioner. He has not committed any
gross misconduct of misappropriation or falsification of records.
None of his acts resulted in any discomfort for any student. The
charges essentially stem out of differences between Petitioner
and management about running of the school. Maybe Petitioner
has gone overboard while functioning as Headmaster. He was
unable to maintain cordial relationship with other teaching and
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
non-teaching staff. As a Headmaster, Petitioner was expected to
lead the entire team and frequent disagreements with the
management and with other staff was definitely not conducive for
the efficient running of the school. This appears to be the reason
why Respondent-management thought it appropriate to remove
the Petitioner from the position as Principal. However, what
ought to have been examined by the School Tribunal was not the
comfort of the management in managing the school with the
Petitioner as a Headmaster, but the gravity of the misconduct
alleged and proved against him. The School Tribunal has not
gone into the issue of proportionality of penalty and has upheld
the termination just because management led evidence before it.
14) Though Petitioner has attempted to urge before me that
there is no evidence to support charges, I am of the view that
there is some evidence against the Petitioner to prove the
misconduct alleged against him. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the case involves total absence of evidence or that the findings of
the enquiry committee and the School Tribunal suffer from the
vice of perversity. I am however, not inclined to interfere in the
order of termination as well as the order of the School Tribunal,
except to the limited extent of proportionality of penalty.
15) Petitioner served as a Headmaster since 10 July 1995.
Though he was terminated from service on 27 January 2005, he
was paid subsistence allowance during pendency of the appeal
before the School Tribunal till 12 June 2006 thereby resulting in
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
continuation of employer-employee relationship right till 12 June
2006. Petitioner apparently attained the age of superannuation
on 31 July 2016. His termination has resulted in loss of pension
and pensionary benefits, which he would have otherwise drawn if
he was to retire from service since his appointment was approved
for an aided college.
16) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my view the appropriate punishment for the Petitioner for the
proved misconduct is to deny him backwages till his attaining
the age of superannuation on 31 July 2016. However, if he is
treated to have continued in service till 31 July 2016, he would
be in a position to draw pension and pensionary benefits. This
would also relieve the Respondent-management of financial
burden of paying backwages to the Petitioner while ensuring that
he receives due retirement benefits in respect of the period for
which he actually served with the Respondent-management.
Therefore, the appropriate course of action to be followed in the
facts and circumstances of the present case is to set aside the
termination order dated 27 January 2005 for the limited purpose
of ensuring pensionary benefits to the Petitioner without
awarding any backwages. Petitioner shall be deemed to have
been in service till 31 July 2016. His pension shall however be
computed on the basis of pay and allowances which could have
been drawn by him on 27 January 2005 had he not been
terminated.
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
17) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 12 June 2006 passed
by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Mumbai, is set aside.
(iii) Order dated 27 January 2005 terminating the
Petitioner from service is also set aside.
(iv) Petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service
of Respondent-management till 31 July 2016
when he attained the age of superannuation. He
shall however, not be entitled to any backwages
from Respondent-management.
(v) Respondent -management shall send a proposal to
the Deputy Director, Vocational Education and
Training (Respondent No.3) for sanction of
retirement benefits of the Petitioner by treating
him as in service upto 31 July 2016 and on the
basis of the salary that the Petitioner would have
drawn had he been in service as on 27 January
2005.
March 2025
Megha 12_wp_5381_2006_fc.docx
(vi) Deputy Director, Vocational Education and
Training shall sanction the proposal for payment
of pension and pensionary benefits of the
Petitioner within a period of two months of receipt
of proposal from Respondent Nos.1 and 2-
management.
(vii) The arrears of pension and pensionary benefits
shall be paid to the Petitioner within a period of
three months of sanction of proposal by Deputy
Director, Vocational Education and Training.
18) With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed.
Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no orders as to
costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
MEGHA
MEGHA SHREEDHAR
SHREEDHAR PARAB
PARAB Date:
2025.03.12
18:49:41
+0530
March 2025
