Sudhakar Landge vs Shivrai Shikshan Sanstha & Ors.

. Heard Mr. B. J. Lonare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Apurv De, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. D. V. Sapkal, learned AGP for Respondent/State.

By this Petition, challenge is to the Judgment and Order dated 29/7/2009 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 29/2009, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

In the present matter, undisputed fact is that, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Respondent/School on 25/6/1984. Then he was promoted as Head Master of the School. During his tenure as Head Master of the School, he was found to be involved in certain misconduct, and therefore, Respondent/Management has decided to initiate departmental enquiry against him. The Respondent/Management, accordingly, conducted departmental enquiry and thereby the Members of the Enquiry Committee submitted their report to the Management on 2/3/2009 with recommendation of penalty of termination of services of the Petitioner. In pursuance of the said recommendation, the Respondent/Management, in its meeting dated 7/3/2009 decided to terminate the services of the Petitioner.

The Respondent/Management accordingly issued termination order dated 7/3/2009 which was received by the Petitioner on 14/3/2009. After receipt of termination order, he has preferred statutory appeal before the School Tribunal, Amravati. Before the School Tribunal, Amravati, the Petitioner has raised all possible grounds and stated that enquiry was not conducted in fair and proper manner in contravention of the provisions of Rule 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

The Petitioner has raised the ground in the present Petition that in absence of resolution of Management, termination order was issued to him. Hence, in view of same, the entire proceedings are vitiated. According to the Petitioner, the termination order dated 7/3/2009, which was received by him on 11/3/2009, shows that same was dispatched at 9.55 a.m. on 7/3/2009, whereas in reply of the Management it is stated that on 7/3/2009 due to lack of quorum meeting was held at 10.55 a.m. Hence, before formal decision of Management, termination order was issued to him. Therefore, he seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter.

In the present matter, after going through the Judgment of the School Tribunal, it is clear that the School Tribunal has considered all the grounds, which are raised by the Petitioner before him. The learned Tribunal, accordingly, held that the enquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner, more particularly, as per the Rules 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules. Therefore, prima facie, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has considered all the issues raised by the Petitioner and thereby reached to the conclusion that termination of the Petitioner is legal.

The Petitioner has raised sole ground that the Respondent/ Management has issued termination order dated 7/3/2009 without accepting recommendation of the Enquiry Committee. The said termination order was issued in haste, and therefore, interference of this Court is necessary in the matter.

In respect of ground raised by the Petitioner that termination order was issued before acceptance of report of Enquiry Committee. It is pertinent to note that Rule 37(6) of the MEPS Rules states that whatever action proposed by the members of Enquiry Committee Members is required to be implemented by the Management within ten days. The Management is not permitted to substitute the decision taken by the Enquiry Committee. In the present case, it is admitted fact that Members of the Enquiry Committee, by the report dated 2/3/2009 has recommended the penalty of termination against the Petitioner, and therefore, only because the order of termination was issued before taking decision, but on the same day, cannot be a reason to set aside the decision of the Enquiry Committee. In such circumstances, it can be said that the Management has granted expost facto sanction to the Enquiry Report. So also, merely it being a ministerial act, which is required to be performed by the Management, hence on such ground enquiry proceeding, which was otherwise held to be legal, cannot be vitiated.

In the result, I find no merit in the present Petition. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.