Shubham Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, ... vs Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Daigavhane

3) In order to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal, the relevant facts need mention in brief infra.

5) On 26.06.2003, Respondent No. 1 was served with charge-sheet as per the procedure prescribed under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as “MEPS Rules”). The charge-sheet contained as many as 17 charges levelled against 2 Respondent No. 1 which he is alleged to have committed in discharge of his duties as Assistant Teacher. It is not necessary to set out the details of the charges here except to mention that perusal of the charges would reveal that most of them were quite serious in nature.

6) The Managing Committee of the School then appointed Three-Member Inquiry Committee to hold an inquiry into the charges levelled against respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the MEPS Rules and submit the report. Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved of this action of the School Management, filed a civil suit and sought stay of the proceedings initiated against him. The matter eventually went to the High Court at the instance of the respondent in writ petition (W.P. No. 892/2004) wherein the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of the parties by order dated 22.11.2005 and directed the Inquiry Committee to conclude the 3 inquiry within 4 months strictly in accordance with the provisions of the MEPS Rules.

7) The Inquiry Committee then held an inquiry wherein respondent No. 1 appeared and participated through his representative-one Mr. Keshavarao Dahake. He filed his reply and denied the charges levelled against him. Both parties, i.e., the appellant (School Management) and respondent No.1, filed documents and examined the witnesses in support of their case. The Inquiry Committee held several sittings.

9) Respondent No. 1, felt aggrieved of his termination order, filed appeal being Appeal No. STN10/2010 before the School Tribunal at Nagpur as provided in the Rules. The School Management (Employer) on being noticed of the appeal filed reply and defended the termination order including the inquiry report. By order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-P-6) the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order holding it legal and proper.

13) The writ Court accepted the aforementioned statement of the intervener and on that basis set aside the order of the Tribunal impugned by respondent No. 1 in his writ petition and at the same time also allowed respondent No.1 to withdraw his writ petition. This is how the writ Court (single Judge) dealt with the issue in para 8 of the impugned order.

14) It is this order, which is impugned in this appeal by one group, who had been defending the termination of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal and the High Court and opposing the prayers made by the intervener in the writ petition which found acceptance to the writ Court resulting in passing of the impugned order.

15) It may be mentioned that the effect of the impugned order is that firstly, the order of Tribunal dated 30.01.2015 stands set aside; secondly, the termination order dated 01.02.2010 of respondent No.1 also stands set aside; and thirdly, respondent No.1 stands reinstated in services of the School. It is stated at the bar that respondent No. 1 has since been reinstated in service and now serving.

21) However, such was not the case. Here, as mentioned supra, appears to be a case where there is a split between the Members of the Managing Committee - one group saying that we should 10 compromise with respondent No.1 and the other group saying that we should not compromise with respondent No.1.

22) In such situation, the High Court should not have accepted the stand of one group and should have proceeded to decide the writ petition on its merits regardless of any internal differences between the Management Committee Members with a view to find out as to whether the order of the Tribunal impugned by respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) is legally sustainable or not?

23) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that we cannot concur with the manner, reasoning and the conclusion of the High Court, which on the one hand allowed respondent No.1 to withdraw his writ petition and on the other hand proceeded to set aside the order of the School Tribunal without examining its legality and correctness on merits and at the same time proceeded to set aside the termination order also by 11 accepting the statement of one group of Management.

24) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is revived for being heard on merits in accordance with law.

25) We, however, consider it apposite to make it clear that the writ Court would only decide the main question which is involved in the writ petition as to whether the order passed by the School Tribunal, which is impugned by the writ petitioner (respondent No.1) is legally sustainable or not? Depending upon the outcome of the writ petition, consequential orders would be passed. We also make it clear that the writ Court would consider the Management (employer) to be the contesting respondent who would be supporting the order of the Tribunal and opposing the writ petition. We also make it clear that the writ Court would not probe 12 into any internal issues arising between these warring groups of Managing Committee of the School nor they would be allowed to take inconsistent stand qua the writ petitioner except the one mentioned above. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the controversy which is subject-matter of writ petition before the High Court and hence writ court would decide the writ petition strictly in accordance with law on merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.

26) During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 1 will not be allowed to work (if he is already reinstated pursuant to the impugned order). In other words, so long as the termination order remains and not set aside by the competent Court, respondent No. 1 would remain out of employment of the appellant - Trust-School. We also grant liberty to the Members of Managing Committee (two rival groups) to settle their internal disputes, if any, 13 in appropriate forum in accordance with law and in doing so, this order would not, in any manner, come in their way.

27) We request the writ Court to ensure early disposal of the writ petition preferably within 6 months as an outer limit.

July 17, 2017 14