Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1645 of 1998 Shri Madhav Bhalchandra Joshi r/at Near Petrol Pump, At & Post:Vashind, Tal. Shahapur, Dist.Thane, Vasind (C.Rly). ...Petitioner V/s. 1. Vidya Vikas Mandal, At & Post:-Vasind, Tal.Shahapur, Dist. Thane. 2. Saraswati Vidyalaya, At & Post: Vasind, Tal. Shahapur, Dist. Thane. 3. Learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai Region, New Mumbai. 4. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr.Dhananjay Holwai iby M/s. M.P.Vashi & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Niranjan Shimpi iby Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr.A.P.Vanarse-AGP for Respodnent No.4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 : 8th February , 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT JUDGEMENT This petition arises from the order passed by the School Tribunal at Navi Mumbai on 14-10-1997 dismissing Appeal No. 175/1997 (Old No.42 of 1992) filed by the petitioner. 2 2. The Petitioner was appointed on 11-6-1973 as an Assistant Teacher at Saraswat Vidyalay run by the Respondent No.1 Society. He was promoted to the post of supervisor on 14-6-1983. He had filed two separate civil suits in the Civil Courts at Thane on 17-11-1990. Civil suit No. 648/1990 was filed against the Head Master of Saraswat Vidyalay and Special Civil Suit No. 650/1990 was filed against the Chairman of the Respondent No.1 Society and both suits were filed for recovery of damages. In the first suit an amount of Rs. 70,500/- and in the second suit an amount of Rs. 80,500/- with interest was claimed from the defendants. While these suits were pending, he came to be suspended from duty on 1-10-1991 but without obtaining permission from the Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane. He was issued a chargesheet on 16-10-1991 and the following 7 charges were levelled against him; (a) he had returned back the annual examination papers of March 1991 two days before the declaration of the result without making a valuation. (b) he was signing the muster-roll and going away without engaging the classes. 3 (c) he did not obey the orders and instructions of the Head Master regarding daily work of the school. (d) he insulted the Chairman of the Trust on 28-9-1991 by challenging his post in filthy language. (e) he was challenging the rights of the Managing authorities. (f) he lowered the prestige and dignity of the school among teachers, students and guardians. (g) he had not submitted the report by evaluating the observation report of students and teachers when he was working in the post of a supervisor. He created confused condition by his odd behaviour when he was working as a supervisor. 3. A departmental enquiry was conducted and enquiry proceedings were completed on 27-3-1992. The enquiry committee in his report dated 18-4-1992 held the petitioner guilty and the same report was submitted to the management on 21-4-1992. Based on the said report he was dismissed from service by an order dated 4-5-1992 4 which he received by registered post on 14-5-1992. He had filed an Appeal which was originally registered as Appeal No.Gen/243/92/TH/92 of 1992. 4. As per the School Tribunal the petitioner had filed the suits with the same cause of action as was the subject matter of the Appeal dated 15-6-1992 and, therefore, the School Tribunal by the impugned order held that the petitioner could not obtain relief for the same cause of action before two different forums. Therefore, the appeal was returned to the petitioner for being presented before the appropriate forum. 5. It must be noted that the suits filed by the petitioner and as was mentioned in the appeal memo itself were much before the date of chargesheet or date of suspension. The suits were filed on 17-11-1990, at that time petitioner was in service whereas the petitioner was suspended from 1-10-1991 and he was served with the chargesheet on 16-10-1991 which ultimately resulted in his dismissal from service as per the order dated 4-5-1992. Thus, there was no connection between the issues pending before the Civil Court in both the Civil Suits and the grievance raised before 5 the School Tribunal. The appeal before the School Tribunal was against the order of dismissal dated 4-5-1992. It is, therefore, clear that the School Tribunal passed a mechanical order without even adverting to the appeal memo and thus committed a manifest error in holding that the petitioner could not seek, for the same cause of action before two different forums. The appeal was required to be heard and decided on its own merits. Unfortunately, this petition remained pending for the last 10 years and in the meanwhile the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31-1-2008. The Petitioner is present in the Court and states that both the civil suits were dismissed sometime in the year 2000. When the petitioner was appointed on 11-6-1993, he possessed the qualifications of B.Sc.(Hons) plus M.Ed and by way of promotion he was appointed to the post of supervisor w.e.f. 14-6-1983. The impugned order passed by the School Tribunal is nothing short of miscarriage of justice and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Hence, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 175/1997 is restored to the file of the School Tribunal at New 6 Mumbai. The School Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible but in any case before 31st July, 2008. Parties to appear before School Tribunal on 25th February, 2008. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 7. Writ to go to the School Tribunal forthwith. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]