[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dilipsingh Gulabsing Pardeshi vs Progressive Education Society Thr. ... on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:1039
k 1/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8687 OF 2021
Progressive Education Society
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411 005. ....Petitioner
V/S
1 Dilipsingh Gulabsingh Pardeshi
Shitolenagar, Sangvi, Pune 411 027
2 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Pune Region, Pune 411 001 ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.14344 OF 2023
Dilipsingh Gulabsingh Pardeshi
Shitolenagar, Sanghvi, Pune 411 027 ....Petitioner
V/S
1 Progressive Education Society
Shivajinagar, Pune - 411 005
2 The Education Officer (Secondary)
Zilla Parishad, Pune
3 The Deputy Director of Education
Pune Region, Pune ....Respondents
_________
Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b Mr. Shubham H. Misar for the Petitioner
in WP 8687 of 2021 and for Respondent in WP 14344 of 2023.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude with Mr. Sumit Sonare for Petitioner in WP
14344 of 2023 and for Respondent in WP 8687 of 2021.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent/State.
__________
katkam Page No. 1 of 20
::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2026 20:33:50 :::
k 2/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON : 24 DECEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 JANUARY 2026.
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule in both the Petitions. Rule is made restorable forthwith.
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the
Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal.
2. These are cross Petitions filed by the Management and by the
Teacher challenging judgment and order dated 30 August 2021 passed
by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Pune, partly
allowing Appeal No.44 of 2009 filed by the Teacher and setting aside
termination order dated 12 October 2009. The Tribunal has granted
liberty to the Management to hold the de novo inquiry from the stage
of formation of Inquiry Committee. The Tribunal has further directed
payment of provisional pension from the date of superannuation of
the Teacher (31 July 2013) till decision of the de novo inquiry. The
entitlement of the Teacher in respect of backwages is held to be subject
to the outcome of the de novo inquiry. The Management is aggrieved
by the Tribunal setting aside termination order dated 12 October 2009
and has accordingly filed Writ Petition No.8687 of 2021. On the other
hand, the Teacher is aggrieved by the order of the School Tribunal to
the limited extent of granting liberty to the Management to hold
de novo inquiry and to make payment of backwages, pension and
other retiral benefits subject to the outcome of de novo inquiry. Since
both Petitions arise out of the same order passed by the School
Tribunal, they are taken up for analogous hearing and decision.
k 3/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
3. Progressive Education Society (Management) runs and
operates schools and colleges. Mr. Dilipsingh Gulabsingh Pardeshi
(Teacher) was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Modern High School,
Shivajinagar, Pune. On 1 May 1986, the Teacher was promoted to the
position of Headmaster. In the year 1992, the Teacher was also
appointed as Life Member of the Management Trust. On 1 February
1994, the Business Council of the Management appointed the Teacher
to the post of Deputy Secretary. Between 2004 and July 2008, the
Teacher was also assigned the post of Secretary of the Business
Council. On 18 July 2008, a resolution was passed by Board of Life
Members recommending cancellation of life membership of the
Teacher and his removal from the post of Secretary of the Business
Council. A resolution to that effect was also passed on 19 July 2008.
On 25 August 2008, a Fact-Finding Committee was constituted
comprising of five members, which submitted its report on 17
September 2008 holding that the Teacher was found guilty of
misconduct, moral turpitude and negligence of duty. Based on the
report of the Fact-Finding Committee, the Business Council of
Management passed a resolution to initiate inquiry against the
Teacher. On 18 October 2008, approval was sought from Deputy
Director of Education for suspension of the Teacher during pendency
of the inquiry. On 23 October 2008, the Teacher was placed under
suspension. On 17 December 2008, a charge-sheet was served on the
Teacher levelling 9 charges. The Teacher raised objection about
impartiality of the Inquiry Committee on 18 March 2009 when the
inquiry was already underway. The objection was rejected by the
Inquiry Committee on 20 March 2009. The Teacher preferred Writ
Petition No.3426 of 2009 challenging the decision of Inquiry
k 4/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
Committee dated 20 March 2009. The Petition came to be withdrawn
on 1 April 2009. On 10 October 2009, Inquiry Committee submitted its
report. Based on the report of the Inquiry Committee, the Teacher was
terminated by order dated 12 October 2009.
4. The Teacher preferred Appeal No.44 of 2009 before the School
Tribunal challenging termination order dated 12 October 2009. During
pendency of Appeal before the School Tribunal, the Teacher attained
the age of superannuation on 31 July 2013. By impugned judgment
and order dated 30 August 2021, the School Tribunal has partly
allowed Appeal No.44 of 2009 mainly on the ground of improper
constitution of the Inquiry Committee. The Tribunal has accordingly
set aside the termination order dated 12 October 2009 and has granted
liberty to the Management to conduct de novo inquiry. The Teacher is
directed to be paid provisional pension from the date of his retirement.
His entitlement to pension, backwages and other retirement benefits is
made subject to the outcome of de novo inquiry. The Management is
aggrieved by the order passed by the School Tribunal setting aside
termination order dated 12 October 2009 and has filed Writ Petition
No.8687 of 2021. The Teacher is also aggrieved by the order passed by
the School Tribunal to the limited extent of liberty for holding of fresh
enquiry and denial of backwages and retirement benefits and has
accordingly filed Writ Petition No.14344 of 2023.
5. Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for the
Management would submit that the School Tribunal has erroneously
allowed Appeal preferred by the Teacher on the sole ground of
participation in the Inquiry Committee by the President and Convener.
He would rely on provisions of Rules 36(2)(b) and 36(5) of the
k 5/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules) in support of his contention that President
of Management has to be a member of Inquiry Committee. Relying on
judgment of this Court in Gopal Damduji Shelwatkar vs. Gramin
Uddhar Society, Kamptee and another1, he would submit that no other
person than President of the Institution can ever be Convener of
Inquiry Committee. He also places reliance on judgments of this Court
in Ganesh Mahadeorao Thawre vs. Central Hindu Military Education
Society, Nashik and another2 and Kankubai Shravikashram Trust and
others vs. Kamal Dattatray Khajurkar and others 3.
6. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the Teacher belatedly
raised objection of President being the Member of Inquiry Committee
after the inquiry had already commenced and three witnesses were
examined. That the decision of Inquiry Committee rejecting his
objection was questioned in Writ Petition No.3426 of 2009, which has
been unconditionally withdrawn on 1 April 2009. That the Teacher
was therefore estopped from raising the said objection.
7. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that a Fact-Finding
Committee was appointed by the Management well before institution
of the inquiry and the said committee had given a detailed opportunity
of hearing to the Teacher. That the report of Fact-Finding Committee
was also supplied to the Teacher. He would submit that principles of
natural justice were followed to the hilt during the course of inquiry.
That Teacher was represented by two advocates who cross-examined
eight witnesses in depth. That the Teacher and his advocates
1 2000 (2) Mh.L.J. 786.
2 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 589
3 1992 Mh.L.J. 216
k 6/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
deliberately attempted to prolong the inquiry. That thus full and fair
opportunity of defence was extended to the Teacher during the course
of inquiry. That the findings of the Inquiry Committee are based on
evidence on record when all the charges are held to be proved. That it
is proved that the Teacher misused his authority as Headmaster and
diverted funds intended for school furniture to cover personal expenses
at his residence. That the findings of the Inquiry Committee do not
suffer from the vice of perversity and that therefore the Tribunal could
not have interfered in the findings of the guilt recorded by the Inquiry
Committee.
8. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that the President of the
Management did not examine himself as a witness nor participated in
the Inquiry Committee on behalf of the Management and acted
neutrally merely as a Convener. That every care was taken by the
Management to afford full opportunity of defence to the Teacher. That
the Teacher and his Advocates signed the proceedings of Inquiry
Committee without raising any objection. He would therefore submit
that the School Tribunal has erroneously proceeded to partly allow the
Appeal preferred by the Teacher. He would submit that the Teacher is
found guilty of grave misconduct and has rightly been terminated from
service. In the light of existence of sufficient evidence on record, it is
not necessary to conduct de novo inquiry merely because President
acted as convener of the Inquiry Committee. That no prejudice is
suffered by the Teacher in any manner. He would therefore pray for
setting aside the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal.
9. Mr. Deshmukh also opposes Writ Petition No.14344 of 2023
filed by the Teacher submitting that in the event of dismissal of
k 7/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
Management's Petition, the Teacher cannot be permitted to go scot-
free in the light of availability of sufficient evidence to prove
misconduct committed by him. He would accordingly pray for
dismissal of the Petition filed by the Teacher.
10. Per contra, Mr. Bhargude, the learned counsel appearing for the
Teacher would oppose the Petition filed by the Management. He
would submit that the School Tribunal has rightly held that a person
cannot be a judge in his own cause. That the complaint itself was
instituted on 17 July 2008 by the Chairman of the Business Council.
That since the Chairman acted as convener of the inquiry committee,
it cannot be contended that the inquiry has been conducted in an
impartial manner. He would therefore submit that the termination
order has rightly been set aside by the School Tribunal.
11. Mr. Bhargude would further submit that since the Teacher was
working as a Headmaster at the relevant time, the inquiry ought to
have been conducted by the President of the Institution and not by the
Chairman of Business Council as per the provisions of Rules 36 and
37 of the MEPS Rules. Since the constitution of the Inquiry
Committee itself is defective, no fault can be found in the order of the
School Tribunal setting aside the termination order. He would
accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petition filed by the Management.
12. Mr. Bhargude would further submit that the Teacher has been
harassed and subjected to victimization by the Management. He would
submit that as many as five litigations (including criminal and civil)
were initiated against the Teacher during pendency of the Appeal and
the inquiry proceedings. He would take me through the details of the
k 8/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
said litigations. That the Management went on challenging every small
interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal by filing Petition before this
Court and before the Supreme Court. He would therefore submit that
decision of the Appeal was delayed deliberately by the Management
and therefore the Teacher is entitled to be paid full backwages from the
date of his suspension till the date of superannuation.
13. Mr. Bhargude would further submit that charges of financial
misappropriation and misconduct were completely frivolous as the
bank accounts were operated only with joint signatures of Chairman
of the School Committee and the Joint Secretary. He would further
submit that several statutory audits and government audits by Zilla
Parishad were conducted from time to time and reports thereof were
submitted before the Charity Commissioner. That no discrepancies
were found in the said audits. That the audit reports have been
accepted and approved by the Charity Commissioner. Additionally
Special Auditor was appointed by the Institution after the audit by the
Government authorities and the report nowhere mentions any amount
of misappropriation and as to how the statutory audit conducted by
the government authorities is wrong. He would take me through each
of the allegations levelled against the Teacher to demonstrate as to how
the same have erroneously been held to be proved.
14. Mr. Bhargude would further submit that the Teacher has already
suffered on account of pendency of Appeal before the Tribunal for 11
long years and that therefore the School Tribunal ought not to have
ordered conduct of de novo inquiry. That the Tribunal ought to have
decided findings on charges on the basis of material available before it
rather than directing conduct of de novo inquiry. He would submit that
k 9/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
Tribunal ought to have awarded backwages to the Teacher. He would
accordingly pray for allowing Writ Petition No.14344 of 2023 and
dismissal of Writ Petition No.8687 of 2021.
15. Rival contentions of parties now fall for my consideration.
16. The Management decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings
against the Teacher and accordingly placed him under suspension by
order dated 23 October 2008. The Management thereafter issued
charge-sheet dated 17 December 2008 to the Teacher in which nine
allegations were levelled as under:
a) While working as Head Master of Modern High School and Junior
College, Ganeshkhind, Pune during the year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08,
Shri D.G. Pardeshi is found to have made various purchases for the school
in his capacity as Head Master without following the prescribed norms,
guidelines as well as in gross violation of the procedure, which amounts to
misconduct and financial misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude.
b) While working as Head Master of Modern High School and Junior
College, Ganeshkhind, Pune, the school trips of students of various classes
are organized every year and the funds are collected for the said trips from
the students. The expenditure for the said respective school trip is carried
out from the funds, so collected. Many times there remain some funds as
unspent out of the said collection. The concerned teachers/ clerks has
stated that these unspent funds are not accounted for in the school or
society account and the same used to be handed over to Shri D.G. Pardeshi
as a Head Master of Modern High School and Junior College,
Ganeshkhind, Pune. Shri D.G. Pardeshi as such has not accounted the
same for the school / society account and misappropriates the same by
taking undue advantage of his position as Head Master. This amounts to
misconduct, misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude on the part of
Shri D.G. Pardeshi.
c) As per the Rules of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan of Zilla Parishad, the grants
received under it are to be handed over to the concerned teacher of the
school for carrying out expenditure on particular project by the concerned
teacher for the students. However, during the year 2005 to 2008 it is
observed that the said grants received, were not handed over to the
concerned teachers by Shri D.G. Pardeshi and were spent by Shri D.G.
Pardeshi directly arbitrarily. Shri D.G. Pardeshi had done so by misusing his
authority as Head Master and this amount to misconduct and financial
misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude.
k 10/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
d) It is found that without the consent and approval of the school committee,
Shri D.G. Pardeshi appointed a staff for Spoken English activities of the
school and during the period 2005 to 2008 huge amounts are shown to be
paid to these employees for Spoken English activities on vouchers. This
action of Shri D.G. Pardeshi of appointment of the employees and making
payment of huge amount to these employees without supporting
resolutions of school committee amount to misconduct, negligence in his
duties and financial misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude.
e) In the capacity of Head Master of Modern High School and Junior
College, Ganeshkhind, Pune Shri D.G. Pardeshi has got renovation and
repairs, painting, construction and furniture etc. works carried out in the
school. Before carrying out these works, no prior approval of the School
Committee was taken nor the quotations were called for and without
supporting approvals /resolution of the school committee, Shri D.G.
Pardeshi by suing his authority as Head Master has arbitrarily got the works
carried out by mailing with huge expenditure and by allotting the work to
specific contractors, which amounts to misconduct and financial
misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude and negligence in duties.
f) Shri D.G. Pardeshi by misusing his authority as Head Master has diverted
the funds of the School to be for school furniture, for getting his personal
work This amounts to misconduct and financial done at his residence.
misappropriation amounting to moral turpitude.
g) On 11/7/2008, Shri D.G. Pardeshi, Head Master of Modern High School
and Junior College, Ganeshkhind, Pune who was also working as a
Secretary at the relevant time abused one of the Schedule Caste (SC)
employee of the Society and has threatened him in front of other
employees. That the said employee has lodged a complaint under The
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 against Shri D.G. Pardeshi.
The actions of Shri D.G. Pardeshi in this fespects amounts to misconduct
and moral turpitude.
h) On 17/7/2007, Shri D.G. Pardeshi, the Head Master of Modern High
School and Junior College, Ganeshkhind, Pune went to the office of
Chairman, Business Council, Progressive Education Society, Pune 411005
and abused him loudly in front of many employees and also used the
threatening language. This action of Shri D.G. Pardeshi amounts to
misconduct amounting to moral turpitude.
i) Shri D.G. Pardeshi has by misusing his position as Head Master of Modern
High School and Junior College, Ganeshkhind, Pune have behaved
indecently with the lady staff during last many years and various complaints
are received against him. His, these actions are unbecoming to the position
as Head Master and amounts to misconduct and moral turpitude.
k 11/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
17. Before issuance of charge-sheet, it appears that a Fact-Finding
Committee was constituted, which submitted report dated 17
September 2008 and recommended initiation of disciplinary inquiry
against the Teacher for misconduct, moral turpitude and negligence of
duty.
18. At the time of the issuance of the charge-sheet to the Teacher,
Professor Dr. G.R. Ekbote was functioning as Chairman of the
Business Council of the Progressive Education Society. In his capacity
as Chairman of Business Council, a complaint was addressed by Dr.
Ekbote on 17 July 2008 to the Chairman of Board of Life Members. It
is on account of Complaint of Dr. Ekbote that the inquiry was
initiated against the Teacher.
19. Dr. Ekbote, Chairman of Business Council came to be
nominated to the inquiry committee as the convener. However, charge
(h) leveled against the Teacher alleged that he approached the office of
the Chairman, Business Council on l7 July 2007 and abused him
loudly in front of many employees and also used threatening language.
The Chairman referred to in clause (h) of the charge-sheet is Dr.
Ekbote. Thus Dr. Ekbote has acted as Convener to the Inquiry
Committee though charge-sheet contains a specific allegation of
threatening and abusing him. The Teacher raised objection about Dr.
Ekbote acting as Convener of the Inquiry Committee. However, the
objection came to be rejected by the Inquiry Committee by order dated
20 March 2009 holding that the Teacher did not raise the objection
immediately after issuance of the charge-sheet and that Inquiry
Committee was constituted as per provisions of MEPS Rules.
k 12/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
20. The Teacher challenged the order of the Inquiry Committee by
filing Writ Petition No.3426 of 2009. However, the same was
withdrawn on 1 April 2009 with liberty to raise the contention at an
appropriate time. Thus, the Teacher did not give up the point of
ineligibility/incapacity of Dr. Ekbote to act as Convener of the Inquiry
Committee.
21. Perusal of the report of the Inquiry Committee would indicate
that charge (h) of threatening and abusing Dr. Ekbote is held to be
proved. Though Dr. Ekbote did not examine himself as witness, he was
the complainant in respect of the incident of threat/abuse dated 17
July 2007. He sat in the inquiry in his own cause and held the Teacher
guilty of charge (h). The Tribunal has held that the formation of
Inquiry Committee was defective on account of participation by
Dr. Ekbote as the convener of the Inquiry Committee. Dr. Ekbote is
held to be interested person and was bound to have biased mind
against the Teacher.
22. It is thus clear that the convener of the Inquiry Committee
(Dr. Ekbote) was interested person in punishing the Teacher. He ought
to have stayed away from the inquiry. Mr. Deshmukh's reliance on
Rules 36(2)(b) and 36(5) of the MEPS Rules does not cut any ice.
Under Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules, the constitution of Inquiry
Committee in case the Head is President of the Management, one
Member nominated by the Head from amongst employees of private
school and an awardee Teacher.
23. Rule 36(2) of the MEPS Rules provides thus:
(2) If the Chief Executive Officer or the President, as the case may be, finds
that the explanation submitted by the employee or the Head referred to in
k 13/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
sub-rule (1) is not satisfactory, he shall place it before the Management
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the explanation. The
Management shall in turn decide within fifteen days whether an inquiry be
conducted against the employee and if it decides to conduct the inquiry, the
inquiry shall be conducted by an Inquiry Committee constituted in the
following manner, that is to say,
(a) in the case of an employee;
(i) one member from amongst the members of the
Management to be nominated by the Management, or by the
President of the Management if so authorised by the
Management, whose name shall be communicated to the
Chief Executive Officer within 15 days from the date of the
decision of the Management;
(ii) one member to be nominated by the employee from
amongst the employees of any private school;
(iii) one member chosen by the Chief Executive Officer from
the panel of teachers on whom State/National Award has
been conferred;
(b) in the case of the Head referred to in sub-rule (1);
(i) one member who shall be the President of the
Management;
(ii) one member to be nominated by the Head from amongst
the employees of any private school;
(iii) one member chosen by the President from the panel of
Head Masters on whom State/National Award has been
conferred.
24. Under Rule 36(5) of the MEPS Rules, the convener of the
Inquiry Committee needs to be nominee of the President or the
President who can initiate action pertaining to conduct of Inquiry
Committee and for keeping records of the Committee. Rule 36(5) of
the MEPS Rules provides thus:
5) The Convener of the respective Inquiry Committee shall be the nominee
of the President, or as the case may be, the President who shall initiate
action pertaining to the conduct of the Inquiry Committee and shall
maintain all the relevant record of the inquiry.
k 14/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
25. Thus in the case of an inquiry against employee, the Convener
can be the nominee of the President and since President himself
becomes part of inquiry in respect of Head, such President becomes
Convener of the Committee. In the present case, Dr. Ekbote was not
the President of the Management. He was only Chairman of Business
Council. Mr. Bhargude has contended that at the relevant time, Shri
Vignahari Maharaj was the President of the Institution. In that view of
the matter, it was not a compelling circumstance for the Management
to keep Dr. Ekbote as the Convener of the Inquiry Committee. Since
the charge-sheet contains specific allegation involving actions of the
Teacher qua Dr. Ekbote, he ought to have stayed away from the inquiry
and ought to have permitted some other impartial person to head the
Inquiry Committee. In that view of the matter, reliance by Mr.
Deshmukh on judgments of this Court in Ganesh Mahadeorao
Thawre (supra), Kankubai Shravikashram Trust and others (supra) and
Gopal Damduji Shelwatkar (supra) is clearly misplaced.
26. I am therefore in agreement with the findings recorded by the
School Tribunal that the inquiry is vitiated on account of Dr. Ekbote
acting as the convener of the Inquiry Committee.
27. Since participation of Dr. Ekbote has resulted in vitiation of
inquiry, the Tribunal has directed conduct of de novo inquiry while
setting aside the termination order. In ordinary circumstances, once the
inquiry and punishment order are set aside on account of technical
defects, the employer must be permitted to hold inquiry again.
Therefore, ordinarily the Tribunal's order granting liberty for conduct
of de novo inquiry could not have been found fault with.
k 15/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
28. In the present case, the School Tribunal has directed conduct of
de novo inquiry from the stage of formation of Inquiry Committee.
The Tribunal noticed the fact that the Teacher had crossed the age of
retirement on 31 July 2013. Such inquiry was directed to be conducted
within a period of 120 days by the School Tribunal. Instead of
conducting the inquiry afresh, the School Management has filed Writ
Petition No.8687 of 2021. However, it appears that the Petition was
filed on 22 October 2021. Immediately thereafter the Teacher also filed
Writ Petition No.14344 of 2023 on or about 23 November 2021. Both
the Petitions were not moved for a considerable period of time. By the
time the Petitions are taken up for hearing, the period specified for
conduct of de novo inquiry is long since over. The issue that arises for
consideration is whether the order of the School Tribunal granting
liberty for conduct of de novo inquiry needs interference in the Petition
preferred by the Teacher? As observed above, I have expressed
disinclination to interfere in the findings recorded by the School
Tribunal about vitiation of inquiry on account of Dr. Ekbote
functioning as Convener of the Inquiry Committee. The termination
order based on report of the Inquiry Committee is therefore rendered
illegal and has rightly been set aside by the School Tribunal. By now,
period of 12 long years has passed since the Teacher crossed the age of
superannuation. This factor needs to be borne in mind while
considering whether it is expedient to maintain the order for holding of
de novo inquiry.
29. The Tribunal was mainly swayed by the fact that the Teacher
faced serious allegations of financial misappropriation while directing
holding of de novo inquiry. I do not find this approach of the School
k 16/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
Tribunal to be entirely wrong as vitiation of inquiry due to technical
reasons would not mean that the delinquent employee will go scot-free
and appropriate course of action to be adopted in such cases is to grant
liberty to hold inquiry afresh. However, in the facts of the present case,
it would not be prudent to permit such course of action at this belated
stage.
30. I have gone through the charges levelled against the
Teacher. Charge (a) was with regard to purchases made by the Teacher
during the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 while functioning as
Headmaster of Modern High School and Junior College. The
allegation was that the purchases were made by the Teacher without
following norms, guidelines and in violation of procedure. Though the
word "financial misappropriation" is used in charge (a), the charge
does not bear out any allegation of financial misappropriation as such.
Charge (b) is with regard to non-accountability in respect of unspent
amounts for School trips by the Teacher. The charge is slightly vague
and does not give details of dates, amounts etc. Charge (c) is in respect
of Petitioner not handing over the amounts of grants issued under
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan for carrying out expenditure on particular
project by the concerned Teacher. Charge (d) is about appointment of a
staff for spoken English activity in absence of resolutions adopted by
the School Management. Charge (e) was in respect of effecting
renovation and repairs, painting, construction and furniture without
the approval of the School Committee. Charge (f) relates to diversion
of funds of the School for furniture for getting personal work done at
the residence. Charge (g) was in respect of filing of Complaint of
atrocity against the Teacher by a Scheduled Caste employee, who was
threatened by the Teacher. Charge (h) was in respect of threatening
k 17/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
and abusing Dr. Ekbote. Lastly, charge (i) was in respect of indecent
behavior with ladies staff for several years and receipt of complaints
against him.
31. The Enquiry Committee has held that all the charges levelled
against the Teacher to be proved. No doubt some of the charges
levelled against the Teacher are of serious nature since the allegations
therein pertain to financial misappropriation. However, at the same
time, holding of a de novo inquiry at such distant point of time
appears to be difficult. During the course of inquiry, 67 meetings were
conducted and the Management examined eight witnesses. Making the
Management to examine all those witnesses afresh before new Inquiry
Committee at this stage appears to be difficult. In that view of the
matter, it would be appropriate to give a full stop in respect of the
entire proceedings.
32. The Teacher has already crossed the age of superannuation on
31 July 2013 and by now, period of almost 13 long years has elapsed.
The Teacher was terminated on 12 October 2009 and by that time, he
had rendered 29 long years of service. The Teacher also appears to be
at an advanced age of 70 years. This is yet another reason why conduct
of de novo inquiry at this stage appears to be unwarranted. Instead, it
would be appropriate to maintain the order of School Tribunal setting
aside the termination order dated 12 October 2009. The Teacher can be
treated to have superannuated from service on 31 July 2013 so that he
receives due pension and pensionary benefits. However, looking into
nature of charges levelled against the Teacher, and considering the fact
that termination is set aside due to technical reason of defective
constitution of Inquiry Committee, in my view, it would be appropriate
not to award backwages to the Teacher from the date of termination
k 18/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
(12 October 2009) to date of superannuation (31 July 2013). However,
he would be entitled to notional pay fixation upto the date of
superannuation i.e. 31 July 2013. This would ensure that though the
Teacher would not earn wages during the date of termination till the
date of superannuation, his pay would be notionally increased till his
retirement as if he continued in service. This course of action would
ensure that no financial burden is put on the School Management and
at the same time the Teacher receives pension and pensionary benefits
for 29 long years of service put by him before his termination.
33. Mr. Bhargude has strenuously urged that the proof of charges be
determined based on evidence already available on record rather than
directing holding of de novo enquiry. I am afraid, this course of action
would clearly go against the interest of the Teacher. The inquiry is held
to be vitiated on account of Dr. Ekbote acting as judge in his own
cause. Otherwise there is direct evidence of eye witness Mr. Satish
Gawali in respect of incident of threatening and abusing Dr. Ekbote.
However, since the evidence of Mr. Gawali is recorded by Committee
headed by Dr. Ekbote, the Tribunal has rightly proceeded to ignore the
same. Therefore, contention of Mr. Bhargude that correctness of
termination order be examined on merits based on available evidence
on record may not inure to the benefit of the Teacher. Instead, the
course of action suggested by this Court would ensure that the Teacher
receives atleast the retirement benefits.
34. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
i) The judgment and order dated 30 August 2021 passed by the
School Tribunal, Pune is confirmed to the extent it sets aside
termination order dated 12 October 2009.
k 19/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
ii) However, Tribunal's order for holding of de novo inquiry is set
aside.
iii) The Teacher shall be treated to be in service as on the date of
superannuation 31 July 2013 for the purpose of payment of
pension and pensionary benefits.
iv) The intervening period from the date of suspension i.e. 23
October 2008 till the date of attaining the age of superannuation
i.e. 31 July 2013 shall be treated on duty for notional pay fixation
of the Teacher.
v) During intervening period from 23 October 2008 to 31 July 2013,
the Teacher shall not be entitled to payment of any actual
backwages or other benefits.
vi) The School Management shall send a proposal within a period
of two months to the Deputy Director of Education for payment
of pension and pensionary benefits to the Teacher with effect
from 1 August 2013 on the basis of notional pay fixation of the
Teacher as on 31 July 2013.
vii) The concerned Officer in the Education Department shall
process the proposal sent by the School Management in an
expeditious manner preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of proposal.
viii) The Teacher shall be paid arrears of pension and pensionary
benefits in an expeditious manner preferably within further
k 20/20 1 wp 8687.21 n 14344.23 J as.doc
period of three months from the date of decision of the
proposal.
35. With the above directions, both the Petitions are partly allowed.
Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
SUDARSHAN
SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM
RAJALINGAM KATKAM
KATKAM Date:
2026.01.12
15:46:56
+0530
