Bombay High Court
Jeevak Aushadhi Arogya Shetaki … vs Shri Zolba S/O Buddhuji Bandhate … on 2 May, 2018
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 WP2642-16.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2642 OF 2016 …1. Jeevak Aushadhi Arogya Shetaki Sanshodhan Sanstha, Pipari, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara, through its Secretary (Prabhudas Nanaji Gajbhiye), R/o Pranag H.I.G.-11, Mhada Colony, Khat Road, Bhandara.2. The Head Master, Pranag High School, Ajangaon, Post – Babdeo, Tah. Mouda, Dist. Nagpur. .. PETITIONERS .. Versus ..1. Shri Zolba s/o Buddhuji Bandhate, Aged about 45 Yrs. Occ: Service, R/o Plot No.72, Tulshi Nagar, Khat Road, Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.2. The Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur. .. RESPONDENTSMr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Petitioner.Mr. V.N. Patre, Advocate h/f Mr. P.P. Thakre, Advocate forRespondentMrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent No.2. ….::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 2 WP2642-16.odt CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATED : MAY 2, 2018ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, the Management i.e. JeevakAushadhi Arogya Shetaki Sanshodhan Sanstha and the HeadMaster of the School run by the aforesaid management haschallenged judgment and order dated 31.03.2016 passed bythe School Tribunal, Nagpur, in favour of respondent no.1,thereby setting aside order dated 23.08.2014 terminating theservices of respondent no.1 and a further direction to reinstatethe said respondent with continuity of service and full backwages.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finallywith the consent of the learned counsel appearing for theparties.

3. Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the petitioner, contended that a perusal of theimpugned order shows that there were as many as 8 charges::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 3 WP2642-16.odt levelled against the respondent no.1 and that a detailedenquiry as contemplated under the provisions of MaharashtraEmployees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder, wasconducted. The enquiry report was voluminous and it wassigned by all the three members i.e. the representative of theManagement, the representative of the respondent no.1(delinquent employee) and the State Awardee Teacher. It wasfound that the respondent no.1 was guilty of all the chargeslevelled against him.

4. On a challenge raised by the respondent no.1 beforethe School Tribunal, Nagpur, in respect of the order terminatinghis services pursuant to the said enquiry report, the tribunalhas found that the appointment of the respondent no.1 wasindeed in terms of the Section 5 of the said Act. This findingwas rendered by the Tribunal after discussing in detail theinitial order of appointment of respondent no.1 dated24.06.1998 and his subsequent service till passing of the orderdated 23.08.2014, whereby his services stood terminated.
5. As regards the discussion on charges levelled againstrespondent no.1, the explanation given by him and the findings::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 4 WP2642-16.odt rendered in the enquiry report, in the impugned judgment andorder, the School Tribunal seems to have discussed thecontentions of both the parties and conclusion has been givenin favour of respondent no.1. A perusal of the impugnedjudgment and order shows that although contentions of bothparties on the charges levelled against the respondent no.1have been recorded, there does not seem to be an analysis ofthe contentions of the parties, particularly in the light offindings rendered in the enquiry report. A perusal of the ordershows that there is no reference made to the enquiry reportand its findings, although it is admittedly a voluminous reportgiven by the three members of the Committee. This is themain ground of attack on the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the School Tribunal.

6. On the other hand, Mr. V.N. Patre, learned counselholding for Mr. P.P. Thakare, Advocate appearing on behalf ofrespondent no.1 has submitted that even though there may nothave been detail references to the enquiry report and itsfindings, there was sufficient material to show that the SchoolTribunal did analyze the contentions of the parties and thematerial on record while holding that the order of terminationdated 23.08.2014 passed against respondent no.1 was liable to::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 5 WP2642-16.odt be set aside. Another aspect argued on behalf of therespondent no.1 was that the representative of the respondentno.1 on the Enquiry Committee had been forced into signingthe enquiry report and that he did not do so voluntarily. This isan aspect argued for the first time before this Court.
7. In response to the same, an affidavit has been placedon record of the said Member representing the respondent no.1before the Committee and it has been stated on behalf of thepetitioner that in the said affidavit the said representative ofrespondent no.1 has clearly stated that there was no coercionand that he had signed on the enquiry report voluntarilywithout any pressure from anybody.

8. As the findings rendered by the School Tribunal in thepresent case pertaining to the merits of the charges levelledagainst respondent no.1 are found to be perfunctory and arebased on mere recording of submissions of parties, it is evidentthat it would be in the interest of justice that this matter isremanded to the School Tribunal for a proper decision on meritsin respect of the said charges, in the light of the findings givenby the enquiry committee. The aspect as to whether therepresentative of respondent no.1 as member of the enquiry::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 6 WP2642-16.odt committee had been forced into signing the enquiry report, canalso be examined by the School Tribunal upon such remand.
9. In the light of the above, the impugned judgment andorder of the Tribunal to the extent that it sets aside the order oftermination of services of the respondent no.1, is set aside andthe matter is remanded to the School Tribunal for properadjudication on the merits of the charges levelled againstrespondent no.1 and findings rendered by the enquirycommittee in that regard. It is made clear that the finding onthe issue as to whether the respondent no.1 was appointed interms of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act rendered by the SchoolTribunal is not disturbed and the matter is remanded only forthe purpose indicated above.

10. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed and thejudgment and order of the School Tribunal to the extentindicated above is set aside and the matter is remanded to theSchool Tribunal for fresh consideration. The parties arepermitted to file additional documents before the SchoolTribunal, including copy of the affidavit of the representative ofthe respondent no.1 in the enquiry committee, which has beenplaced before this Court. Since the appeal before the School::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 ::: 7 WP2642-16.odt Tribunal concerns order of termination of service dated23.08.2014, it is directed that the appeal upon remand, shall bedecided by the School Tribunal, within a period of four monthsfrom today.

(Manish Pitale, J. ) …
halwai/p.s.
::: Uploaded on – 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on – 04/05/2018 01:44:18 :::

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: