:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 428 OF 2007 Incharge Head Mistress (Smt. Chaya D. Kharawale) ..Petitioner versus Shivanand S. Dunage & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. S. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. V. V. Purwant for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. J. S. Patankar i/b. Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 16TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent 2. The first grievance of the petitioner Head Mistress is that the following remarks in paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the Tribunal may be expunged. ".....This conduct of Respondent No.2 is ".....This conduct of Respondent No.2 is ".....This conduct of Respondent No.2 is nothing but insubordination warranting nothing but insubordination warranting nothing but insubordination warranting disciplinary action against her by the disciplinary action against her by the disciplinary action against her by the :2: Management...." Management...." Management...." The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the petitioner ought to have been give some opportunity to explain how no disciplinary action was justified against her before the Tribunal recommenced such action. There appears to be no doubt that the aforesaid observation was made by the Tribunal on its own. In such circumstances having regard to the fact that such observations would have serious civil consequence, I am of view that the remarks should be expunged and are accordingly expunged. This expunging of the remarks shall not however grant immunity to the petitioner from any enquiry for any act, in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner objects to the second part of direction No. 5, i.e. that part of order which gives direction that the A.O. shall deduct dues of the appellant from the salary of the respondent No.2 Head Mistress (petitioner) and be paid to the appellant. The learned counsel points out to the resolution dated 17.6.2005 by which the management decided to take action against the present respondent No.1. The resolution shows :3: that the School Committee decided to take action against the respondent No.1 in view of the letter of the Education Officer dated 10.5.2002, the Education Officer had stated that approval would not be given since the respondent No. 1 had been appointed against the reserved post. In the circumstances the submission of the petitioner is correct that the termination of the respondent No.1 was not due to any ill will borne by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 nor was there any personal reason. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to delete portion of the direction No.5, which reads as under:- "....On their failure, the Respondent No. 2 "....On their failure, the Respondent No. 2 "....On their failure, the Respondent No. 2 A.O. shall deduct the dues of the Appellant A.O. shall deduct the dues of the Appellant A.O. shall deduct the dues of the Appellant from the salary of the Respondent no. 2 from the salary of the Respondent no. 2 from the salary of the Respondent no. 2 Head Mistress and be paid directly to the Head Mistress and be paid directly to the Head Mistress and be paid directly to the Appellant." Appellant." Appellant." 4. Similarly, the following words are deleted from the direction No. 3 : "........from the Respondent No. 2 Head "........from the Respondent No. 2 Head "........from the Respondent No. 2 Head Mistress alone." Mistress alone." Mistress alone." :4: It is clarified that the liability imposed on the respondent No. 2 is actually the liability of the management and the respondent No. 2 cannot be made personally accountable for the liability. This shall in no way affect the grant of back wages to the respondent No.1. Backwages may be recovered in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal. 5. Order accordingly. Rule made absolute. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)