[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jay Shivaray Pratishtan, Through ... vs Shri. Kaluram Kisan Bombale And Ors on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11931
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SAYALI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DEEPAK
UPASANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 8545 OF 2013
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.03.11 Jay Shivaray Pratishtan thr. President
17:57:04 +0530
and Another ... Petitioner
V/s.
Kaluram Kisan Bombale and Others ... Respondents
Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, for Petitioner.
Mr. Vilas B. Tapkir, for Respondent no. 1 with Mr.
Parth Deshpande.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for State-Respondent
nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. The challenge in the present petition arises from the
judgment and order dated 06 October 2012 passed by the School
Tribunal in Appeal No. 28 of 2012. By the said judgment, the
Tribunal allowed the Appeal preferred by respondent no. 1 under
Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. As a result of the
said decision, the petitioner management was directed to
reinstate respondent no. 1 to the post of Assistant Teacher. The
1
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
Tribunal further granted consequential benefits. These included
continuity of service and payment of back wages from the date
on which the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated till the
date she is reinstated. The petitioner management has therefore
approached this Court questioning the correctness of the said
judgment and the directions issued by the Tribunal.
2. The background facts which have led to the filing of the
present petition are required to be noted in some detail. These
facts show how the dispute between the parties has developed
over a period of time and why the matter ultimately reached the
School Tribunal.
3. The record shows that respondent no. 1 was initially
appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the petitioner school on
probation. Her appointment was against a permanent vacancy.
The appointment was effective from 14 June 2000. It appears
that for several years she continued in service in the said school.
However, after a long period of service, certain allegations were
made against her by the management. On that basis, the
petitioner management issued a show cause notice dated 16
September 2010 calling upon respondent no. 1 to explain the
allegations made against her. Respondent no. 1 submitted her
explanation to the said notice. The management, however, was
not satisfied with the explanation so submitted.
4. Thereafter, on 06 December 2010, the petitioner
management issued a formal charge sheet to respondent no. 1.
2
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
Along with issuing the charge sheet, the management also
constituted an inquiry committee for the purpose of holding a
departmental inquiry against her. The inquiry committee
thereafter conducted proceedings in which respondent no. 1
participated. Evidence came to be recorded and the material
placed before the committee was considered. At the conclusion of
the inquiry, the committee submitted its report. The majority of
the members of the committee recorded a finding that
respondent no. 1 was guilty of the charges levelled against her. It
is however important to note that one member of the committee
did not agree with the majority view and recorded a dissent.
Despite the dissenting opinion, the management accepted the
majority report of the inquiry committee. On the basis of that
report, the management issued an order terminating the services
of respondent no. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the said termination,
respondent no. 1 preferred Appeal No. 28 of 2012 before the
School Tribunal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act.
5. The School Tribunal examined the entire material placed
before it including the proceedings of the inquiry committee.
Upon such examination, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that
the inquiry conducted by the management was not in accordance
with the rules governing such proceedings. The Tribunal noticed
that the Chairman of the petitioner management was acting as
the convener of the inquiry committee. At the same time, during
the course of the inquiry proceedings, the said Chairman also
stepped into the witness box and deposed as a witness on behalf
3
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
of the management. The Tribunal found that the evidence of this
very person was thereafter taken into consideration by the
inquiry committee while deciding the charges against respondent
no. 1. According to the Tribunal, such a course of action was
impermissible and was contrary to the procedure prescribed
under the relevant rules.
6. On this basis, the School Tribunal recorded a clear finding
that there was non compliance with Rules 37 and 38 of the MEPS
Rules, 1981. These rules provide the procedure for conducting a
fair departmental inquiry. The Tribunal held that the inquiry
committee must function in an unbiased manner and the role of
each person in the inquiry must remain distinct. A person who is
involved in the process of conducting the inquiry cannot
simultaneously act as a witness in support of the charges.
According to the Tribunal, the participation of the Chairman as a
witness and the reliance placed upon his testimony by the
committee vitiated the entire inquiry process.
7. The Tribunal further observed that the material on record
showed that one Mr. Laxman Balkawade was acting as the
convener of the inquiry committee up to the fourth meeting.
Subsequently, in the seventh meeting of the committee, he
entered the proceedings as a representative of the management
and gave his evidence. This evidence was thereafter relied upon
by the majority of the committee members while arriving at the
finding that respondent no. 1 was guilty of the charges. Such a
4
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
procedure clearly affects the fairness of the inquiry. A person who
is connected with the conduct of the inquiry cannot be allowed to
assume the role of a witness whose testimony is later evaluated
by the same committee. This creates a situation where the
neutrality of the inquiry stands compromised. In that view of the
matter, the Tribunal held that the inquiry was not conducted in
accordance with Rule 37 of the MEPS Rules.
8. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both
sides and after perusing the material placed on record, the
finding recorded by the School Tribunal in this regard appears to
be supported by the evidence available. The record clearly shows
the dual role played by the said person during the inquiry
proceedings. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal
that the inquiry suffered from procedural illegality cannot be said
to be unreasonable or unsupported by the record.
9. The School Tribunal, after holding that the inquiry was
vitiated due to breach of the prescribed rules, further proceeded
to record a finding that in the facts of the present case it was not
necessary to permit the management to hold a fresh inquiry. The
Tribunal appears to have been of the view that the management
was determined to terminate the services of respondent no. 1 and
therefore granting liberty to hold a fresh inquiry would not serve
any useful purpose.
10. In my opinion, this part of the reasoning of the Tribunal
requires reconsideration. Once it is found that the earlier inquiry
5
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
was not conducted in accordance with law, the normal course
would be to give liberty to the management to hold a fresh
inquiry strictly in accordance with the rules. If an inquiry has
failed on account of procedural defects, the management cannot
automatically be deprived of the opportunity to establish the
charges through a properly conducted inquiry.
11. In the present case, the charges levelled against respondent
no. 1 were serious enough for the management to initiate
disciplinary proceedings. When the earlier inquiry has been set
aside on the ground of violation of procedural safeguards, it
would be appropriate to permit the management to conduct a
fresh inquiry by constituting an unbiased inquiry committee and
by following the procedure laid down under the MEPS Rules.
Such a course would protect the interests of both sides. The
employee would receive a fair opportunity to defend herself. At
the same time, the management would not be prevented from
proving the charges, if they are capable of being proved through
lawful evidence.
12. Therefore, while the conclusion of the School Tribunal
regarding the illegality in the inquiry cannot be faulted, the
refusal to permit the management to hold a fresh inquiry does
not appear to be justified in the circumstances of the case. To that
limited extent, the impugned judgment requires modification.
6
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2026 21:16:21 :::
21-WP-8545-13-final.doc
13. Hence, the following order is passed.
ORDER
I. Clause 1 and Clause 2 of the impugned judgment and
order dated 06 October 2012 passed by the School Tribunal
in Appeal No. 28 of 2012 are confirmed.
II. Respondent no. 1 shall be reinstated in service within a
period of two weeks from today.
III. The petitioner management is at liberty to conduct a
fresh inquiry against respondent no. 1 after strictly
following the procedure prescribed under the MEPS Rules.
IV. The petition stands disposed of.
V. Considering that respondent no. 1 is due to retire in May
2026, the petitioner management shall pay the back wages
to respondent no. 1 within a period of eight weeks from
today.
14. In view of the above directions, nothing further survives in
the present petition. The petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
