Bombay High Court
Sachin S/O Devisingh Jadhav vs Late Motiram Naik Shikshan Sanstha, ... on 18 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13019
-- 1 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6418 OF 2019
1. Late Motiram Naik Shikshan Sanstha
Vithala through its Secretary
Adv.Sudhakar s/o Piru Jadhav
Digras Tq Digras Dist. Yavatmal
.. Petitioners
2. Lalibai VJNT Arts and Science Junior
College Tiwari through its Principal
R/o Digras Tq Digras Dist. Yavatmal
Versus
1) The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, Dist.Yavatmal
2) The Assistant Commissioner,
Social Welfare Department, .. Respondents
Yavatmal Dist. Yavatmal
3) Sachin s/o Devisingh Jadhav
Aged about 38 years, Occu : Teacher
R/o C/o Kanha Hospital
Near Surjuse Hospital, Tilak Wadi
Yavatmal Tq and Dist. Yavatmal
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6681 OF 2019
1. Mr. Sachin s/o Devisingh Jadhav
Aged about 39 years, Occu : Teacher
Registered Address - C/o Kanha .. Petitioner
Hospital, Shivaji Chowk, Digras
Dist. Yavatmal
Versus
1. Late Motiram Naik Shikshan Sanstha
Vithala, Tahsil Digras, Dist. Yavatmal
PTR No.F-813/84 (YTL) through its
Secretary Adv.Sudhakar s/o Piru Jadhav
2. The Inquiry Committee,
Through its Members -
a) Mr. Prabhakar S/o. Piru Jadhav
PAGE 1 OF 11
-- 2 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
R/o. Vithala, Tahsil Digras,
Dist. Yevatmal
b) Mr. Sanjay S/o. Narayanrao Phalke
R/o. Jirapure Layout, Singhaniya
Nagar Arni Road, Yavatmal.
3. The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal .. Respondents
4. The Assistant Commissioner
Social Welfare Department, Yavatmal
Dist. Yavatmal
5. Lalibai VJ NT Arts and Science Junior
College, Tiwri, Tahsil Digras
Dist. Yavatmal, Through its Principal
6. The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Amravati.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.A.D.Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.6418/2019 and
for respondent Nos.1 and 5 in WP No.6681/2019.
Mr.Harish Dangre, Advocate for respondent No.3 in WP No.6418/2019
and for petitioner in WP No.6681/2019.
Mr.A.A.Madiwale, AGP for respondent-State in respective petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBARE, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 18, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties
forthwith.
(2) In both these petitions, petitioners challenge the order
dated 31/07/2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
PAGE 2 OF 11
-- 3 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
Amravati in Appeal No.27/2018.
(3) The Writ Petition No.6418/2019 is filed by the
management, whereby challenge is raised to the extent of granting
reinstatement.
(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
enquiry conducted against the employee was as per the provisions of
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981 (for short 'MEPS Rules') and charges were proved against
the employee in the enquiry. After concluding the enquiry punishment
was imposed upon the respondent No.3 employee.
(5) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
learned Tribunal has recorded its findings on the issue Nos.4 and 5 that
charges were proved, particularly the issue No.4, which reads as
follows :-
"4. Whether there is compliance of rule 33 and 36 of the Rules?
5. Whether there is compliance of rule 37 of the Rules?"
Therefore, once these two issues have been addressed in
affirmative by the learned Tribunal, it shall not have interfered with the
dismissal order issued by the management.
(6) He further points out that in para 49 of the order no
PAGE 3 OF 11
-- 4 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
findings were recorded by the learned Tribunal and it came to the
conclusion of not confirming the order of the dismissal. He further
submits that the learned Tribunal has not recorded any findings that it
is neither the case of lack of evidence nor a case where the findings of
the Enquiry Officer are found perverse. He further points out that once
the Tribunal has recorded finding that enquiry was legal, proper and it
was concluded by following due process of law, learned Tribunal does
not have power under Section 11 of the MEPS Act to convert the order
of dismissal into lesser punishment of withholding of one annual
increment.
(7) In support of his contention, he relied upon following
judgments :-
1 Secretary, Ahilyadevi Holkar vs. Vekatrao 2024 SCC Online Bom 1130
2 State of UP vs. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava (2006) 3 SCC 276
3 Regional Manager UPSRTC vs. Hotilal (2003) 3 SCC 605
4 State Bank of India vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212
5 Chairman and Managing Director vs. Goparaju (2008) 5 SCC 569
6 Mahalaxmi Shikshan vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 826
7 P.M.Ruikar Trust vs. Punjaram 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 783
8 High Court vs. Uday Singh Nimbelkar 1997 (2) Mh.L.J. 578
9 Avinash vs. Navodaya 1997 (2) SCC 534
10 Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank (2003) 3 SCC 583
11 Dnyaneshwar Daigavane vs. Shubham Bahuuddeshiya 2018 (5)
Mh.L.J. 149
12 Suryabhan Avhad vs. Mahendra & Mahendra 2011 (1) CLR 457
13 Director General of Police vs. R.Janibasha (1998) 9 SCC 490
PAGE 4 OF 11
-- 5 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
14 Tata Infomedia vs. Tata Press Employees Union 2005(3)Mh.L.J.105
15 General Manager (Operations) SBI vs.R.Periyasamy (2015) 3 SCC 101
16 Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618
(8) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent employee
submits that the charges levelled against the respondent employee do
not involve moral turpitude and are not serious in nature. The charges
levelled against the employee by the management were discussed in
detail by the learned Tribunal and enquiry was held to be proper.
Learned Tribunal held that the charges are not serious and do not
involve moral turpitude and therefore, it converted the stringent
punishment of dismissal into lesser punishment of withholding one year
increment, therefore, learned counsel for respondent prayed to dismiss
the present writ petition.
(9) As far as the Writ Petition No.6681/2019 is concerned, it
is filed by the employee to the extent of not granting back wages and
subsistence allowance. Learned counsel for petitioner-employee
submits that as the Tribunal has set aside the order of dismissal and
reduced the punishment to a lesser one by withholding one increment.
He further submits that once the termination order was set aside, the
petitioner-employee was entitled to receive back wages.
(10) He further points out that the interim relief of stay of
PAGE 5 OF 11
-- 6 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
effect, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment was
granted by this Court on 30/09/2019 and the same was effective till
the next date i.e. 04/11/2019, thereafter the said interim relief was not
continued. The learned Tribunal vide Clause (4) of the operative part of
the impugned order had directed the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner employee before 09/09/2019. Therefore, excluding the
period of stay granted by this Court, the respondent ought to have
reinstated the petitioner-employee before 09/09/2019 or after
04/11/2019. Therefore, the petitioner was also entitled to receive the
salary for the said period excluding the period of stay. The petitioner
has filed the present petition only for getting back wages.
(11) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
management submits that the enquiry was conducted as per the rules
and by exercising powers conferred upon it by Section 4 of the MEPS
Act. The Tribunal has passed the order holding that the enquiry was
legal and proper, and therefore, petitioner-employee is not entitled to
receive full back wages.
(12) Considering the submissions advanced by both the
counsels at length. The controversy that arises in these writ petitions
is - Whether the Tribunal can exercise power under Section 11 of the
MEPS Act to impose lesser punishment if the Tribunal has already held
PAGE 6 OF 11
-- 7 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
the enquiry legal and proper. For that it is appropriate to refer to
Section 11 of the MEPS Act, which reads as under :-
"11. (1) On receipt of an appeal, where the Tribunal, after giving
reasonable opportunity to both parties of being heard, is satisfied
that the appeal does not pertain to any of the matters specified in
section 9 or is not maintainable by it, or there is no sufficient
ground for interfering with the order of the Management it may
dismiss the appeal.
(2) Where the Tribunal, after giving reasonable opportunity to
both parties of being heard, decides in any appeal that the order
of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or
reduction in rank was in contravention of any law (including any
rules made under this Act), contract or conditions of service for the
time being in force or was otherwise illegal or improper, the
Tribunal may set aside the order of the Management, partially or
wholly, and direct the Management,-
(a) to reinstate the employee on the same post or on a
lower post as it may specify;
(b) to restore the employee to the rank which he held
before reduction or to any lower rank as it may specify;
(c) to give arrears of emoluments to the employee for such
period as it may specify;
(d) to award such lesser punishment as it may specify in
lieu of dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service
or reduction in rank, as the case may be:
(e) where it is decided not to reinstate the employee or in
any other appropriate case, to give such sum to the
employee, not exceeding his emoluments for six months,
by way of compensation, regard being had to loss of
employment and possibility of getting or not getting
suitable employment thereafter. as it may specify; or
(f) to give such other relief to the employee and to observe
such other conditions as it may specify, having regard to
the circumstances of the case.
(3) It shall be lawful for the Tribunal to recommend to the State
Government that any dues directed by it to be paid to the
employee, or in case of an order to reinstate the employee any
emoluments to be paid to the employee till he is reinstated, may
be deducted from the grant due and payable, or that may become
due and payable in future, to the Management and be paid to the
employee direct.
(4) Any direction issued by the Tribunal under sub-section (2)
shall be communicated to both parties in writing and shall be
complied by the Management within the period specified in the
PAGE 7 OF 11
-- 8 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
direction, which shall not be less than thirty days from the date of
its receipt by the Management."
(13) Further it is appropriate to refer to Rule 29 which deals
with the penalty, which reads as under :-
"29. Penalties.- Without prejudice to the provisions of these rules, any
employee guilty of misconduct, moral turpitude, willful and persistent
neglect of duty and incompetence, as specified in rule 28, shall be liable
for any of the following penalties, namely :
(1) warning, reprimand or censure.
(2) withholding of an increment for a period not exceeding one
year.
(3) recovery from pay or from some other amount as may be due
to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
Institution by negligence or breach of orders.
(4) reduction in rank.
(5) termination of service :
Provided that, an employee of a private school aggrieved with decision
of imposing a minor penalty as specified in clause (1) of rule 31 may
prefer an appeal to the Deputy Director of the region concerned within 45
days from the date of receipt of the order of punishment."
(14) Rule 31 deals with classification of penalties which reads
as under :-
31. Classification of penalties.- The penalties shall be
classified into minor and major penalties as under :
(1) minor penalties :
(i) reprimand,
(ii) warning,
(iii) censure,
(iv) withholding of an increment for a period not exceeding
one year,
(v) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due
to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to
the Institution by negligence or breach of orders.
PAGE 8 OF 11
-- 9 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
(2) major penalties :
(i) reduction in rank,
(ii) termination of service.
Therefore, the punishment awarded by the learned Tribunal
comes in the category of minor penalty as per Rule 31(1)(iv).
(15) Considering the language used in Section 11(2) of the
aforesaid Act, it clearly reveals that the Tribunal is empowered to set
aside the termination order which was found to be illegal or improper
and more particularly, Section 11(2)(d) provides that the Tribunal has
power to award such lesser punishment as it may specify in lieu of
dismissal, removal, otherwise termination of service or reduction in
rank, as the case may be. As well as Section 11 (2)(f) provides that
the Tribunal has power to give such other relief to the employee and to
observe such other conditions as it may specify, having regard to the
circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal has power under
Section 11(2)(d) to pass an appropriate order awarding lesser
punishment even if the enquiry was held to be legal and proper. In this
case, though the enquiry conducted was held to be legal and proper as
per the procedure of MEPS Rules, 1981, it does not mean that the
learned Tribunal does not have power to pass a lesser punishment by
converting the order of dismissal into withholding one increment.
Considering the provision of Section 11, I am of the opinion that
learned Tribunal has power to impose lesser punishment even though
PAGE 9 OF 11
-- 10 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
the enquiry was held to be legal and proper.
(16) On perusal of Rule 29 (2) it reflects that without
prejudice to the provisions of these rules, any employee found guilty of
misconduct, moral turpitude, wilful and persistent neglect of duty, may
be awarded punishment of withholding of one increment for a period
not exceeding one year.
(17) Rules 31 classifies the penalty as minor one and Section
11 empowers the learned Tribunal to impose lesser punishment by
withholding an increment for a period not exceeding one year. Even
though the charges levelled against the employee are proved, the
learned Tribunal has rightly awarded lesser punishment, as the charges
did not involve moral turpitude and were not serious. The learned
Tribunal has rightly exercised the powers conferred upon it by Section
11(2) of the MEPS Act. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the order passed by learned Tribunal. Hence, the Writ Petition
No.6418/2019 is liable to be dismissed.
(18) As far as the Writ Petition No.6681/2019 is concerned,
the petitioner though prayed that he is entitled to receive back wages
from the date of dismissal till the order of reinstatement. I have gone
through the appeal memo which was filed before the Tribunal. In the
pleadings the petitioner employee had not stated that he was not
PAGE 10 OF 11
-- 11 -- WP 6418.2019 + 1.odt
gainfully employed during that period. Even there are no averments
made in the pleadings that he is entitled for getting back wages. Once
there are no averments made to that effect, the petitioner is not
entitled to receive back wages.
(19) As Tribunal holds that the enquiry was legal and proper,
but by virtue of Section 11 of the Act lesser punishment was imposed
and on that count back wages were denied to the petitioner. Therefore,
I do not find any reason to interfere with the order, resultantly, the Writ
Petition No.6681/2019 is also liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order :-
ORDER
1. The Writ Petition Nos.6418/2019 and
6681/2019 are dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
Rule is discharged.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE)
KOLHE
Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe PAGE 11 OF 11
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/11/2025 15:15:23
