1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2008 Dilip Parashram Kharat .vs. Mah. State Board of Secondary & H.S. & others ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. Mr. M.K. Pathan, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent no.1. A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Mr. S.J. Kadu, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 & 4. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C.L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED: JULY 11, 2008. The appellant who was Assistant Teacher has challenged the reversal order passed by the learned Single Judge that resulted into termination of the petitioner on the ground of misconduct though School Tribunal allowed the appeal granting reinstatement and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2} In the year 1986, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher for English in respondent no.3 institution. He was made permanent sometime 2 in March, 1992. He was appointed as Valuer by respondent No.1 Board for evaluating the papers of students of Board examinations. He was appointed as Valuer sometime in July, 1992. As the appellant had committed an act of unfair practice as a Valuer, he was charge-sheeted. An enquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of malpractices. Therefore, he was debarred permanently from Board examination work. After conducting enquiry, the management on 27.8.1993 terminated the services of the appellant under Rule 22 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules (MEPS Rules). The School Tribunal after considering the material allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and directed the management to reinstate the appellant along with full back wages. 3} The management, therefore, challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 2607/95. 4} After hearing both the parties, the said Writ Petition was finally heard and disposed of by the well-reasoned judgment dated 13.3.2007. Admittedly, the Board after conducting enquiry debarred and disqualified the appellant permanently from working as Valuer in future examination. The 3 said order remained unchallenged. The management has also after considering the material available on record by giving full opportunity to the appellant found him guilty and, therefore, terminated his service. The learned Single Judge after considering Rules 22, 28, 36, 37 read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and the judgment of Bombay High Court in Sudha .vs. Yashodabai Shikshan Sanstha reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J. 659 reversed the order of the School Tribunal by rightly holding that : (a) action of the appellant falls within the ambit of meaning misconduct in view of the fact that the Board found him guilty, principally on two counts : (i) that the appellant had given more marks than were due as a Valuer of about 16 students, (ii) he got answers written at spaces left blank by the students in answer- sheets and given marks even on such subsequently written answers and that finding remained unchallenged, (a) there is no question of breach of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India merely because the Board had already debarred the applicant from future work as Valuer as the applicant was terminated subsequently on the basis of said confirmed misconduct, (b) the appointment of retired Headmaster as a Member of the Enquiry 4 Committee; in view of any express prohibition in Rules, the Enquiry Committee so constituted cannot be said to be illegal. 5} In Sudha (supra), the Division Bench after considering the Government Resolution held that such an appointment of retired teacher as a member of the Committee is valid. The punishment of termination cannot be said to be disproportionate at all in view of the proved misconduct of present nature by rightly observing as under :- “Similarly, punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate at all because once misconduct of present nature is proved, it is for the Employer to maintain standards of discipline. A teacher like respondent no.4 who does not himself honor his own position and sanctity of such important examinations, and on the contrary violates it, cannot claim any right to be continued as teacher. School Tribunal has acted without jurisdiction in sitting in appeal in this respect as it cannot be said that no reasonable employer would have imposed similar punishment in similar circumstances.” 5 6} The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant apart from submission as answered by the learned Single Judge and as referred above re- argued in the present appeal and further submitted that the Board in spite of above permitted and appointed the appellant as conductor or moderator of Secondary and Higher Secondary examinations. However, as observed no such material was placed on record to justify this submission. This submission itself is not sufficient to reverse the finding given by the learned Single Judge in view of the finality attained by the earlier order of the Board after proving the appellant's misconduct. 7} In the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE. J.