Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 – rr.36 and 37(6) – Inquiry Committee and Procedure of Inquiry – Original respondent (since deceased) was terminated from the services after a disciplinary enquiry – Appeal was filed before the School Tribunal, however, same was rejected – Writ petition was filed by the respondent – High Court held that there was breach of r.37(6) of the Rules, 1981 and order of the termination was set aside – Review application filed by the appellants was dismissed – On appeal, held: The report of the Enquiry Committee was duly signed by all the three members – Two members concluded that the charges were duly proved – The third member of the Enquiry Committee, however, recorded his dissent while signing the Report – It was evident that the requirements of r.37(6) were duly fulfilled – Also, High Court did not consider all the contentions on behalf of the contesting parties – Thus, the basis on which the High Court allowed the writ petition was misconceived – However, remanding the case would not serve the ends of justice since employee has died and proceeding is pursued by her legal representatives – Therefore, appellant-management directed to pay Rupees one lakh fifty thousand to the respondents purely as an ex gratia payment on humanitarian grounds in full and final settlement. The original respondent was engaged as a head mistress by the third appellant. A charge-sheet was issued to the employee levelling many charges including a charge of misappropriation. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent. A combined report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee. One of the three members of the Committee expressed a dissenting view. The services of the employee came to be terminated. An appeal was filed before the School Tribunal, however, same was rejected. Following, a writ petition was filed by the respondent. High Court held that there was a breach of rule 37(6) by the Committee, hence, order of the termination was set aside. A review application filed by the appellants was dismissed. Hence the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Report of the Enquiry Committee was duly signed by all the three members. Two members concluded that the charges were duly proved. The third member of the Enquiry Committee, however, recorded his dissent while signing the Report. It is evident that the requirements of Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 were duly fulfilled. [Para 10] [938-G]
2. The basis on which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the employee was misconceived. The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are accordingly set aside. The High Court has also observed, in the course of its judgment, that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties had made submissions on “various points”. The High Court did not consider it appropriate to deal with all the contentions on the basis that the decision of this Court in Vidya Vikas Mandal governs the case. This Court would have ordinarily remanded the proceedings to the High Court for considering those grounds of challenge. However, the respondents have stated before the Court that an order of remand, at this stage, would not serve the ends of justice since the employee has died and the proceedings are being pursued by her legal representatives. Hence, the respondents have submitted that it would be appropriate if the management pays some ex gratia amount in full and final settlement. Therefore, an amount of Rupees one lakh fifty thousand shall be paid to the respondents purely as an ex gratia payment on humanitarian grounds in full and final settlement. [Paras 13-15][940-C-G]
Vidya Vikas Mandal v. the Education Officer
2007 (2) SCALE 589 : [2007] 2 SCR 340
– distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.