The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, quashed the penalty imposed by the school management on the petitioner, a permanent teacher, due to procedural lapses in the disciplinary inquiry. The court found that the punishment of reducing the teacher's pay scale was illegal as it did not conform to the statutory rules under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The court directed the management to grant the petitioner all due benefits, including seniority, back wages, and retirement benefits.

1. Introduction

• Overview of the case where Shri. Devidas Bhanudas Toradmal, a teacher, challenged the penalty imposed by his employer, a private school management, for alleged misconduct.

2. Background of the Case

• Details of the petitioner’s employment history, including his appointment as an Assistant Teacher and the subsequent approval of his employment by the Education Officer.
• Issues that led to the disciplinary action, including allegations of financial exploitation by the management and the petitioner’s transfer to another school.

3. Disciplinary Proceedings

• Description of the steps taken by the school management to initiate disciplinary action, including the suspension of the petitioner and the formation of an inquiry committee.
• Key events leading up to the final decision, including the issuance of a charge sheet and the conduct of hearings.

4. Petitioner's Argument

• The petitioner's claim that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in violation of the statutory procedures outlined in the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
• Argument that the punishment imposed was not within the scope of the permissible penalties under the rules.

5. Respondent's Argument

• The school management's defense, asserting that the disciplinary process was conducted according to legal requirements and that the petitioner was afforded due process.

6. Court's Findings

• The court's analysis of the procedural flaws in the disciplinary process, including the improper constitution of the inquiry committee and the illegal nature of the penalty imposed.
• The court's decision that the reduction in pay scale was not a minor penalty and therefore could not be imposed without following the proper procedure for major penalties.

7. Conclusion and Order

• The court’s final order quashing the punishment and directing the school management to grant the petitioner the benefits he was entitled to, including seniority, back wages, and a revised proposal for retirement benefits.

8. Legal Implications

• Discussion on the broader implications of the judgment for disciplinary actions in private educational institutions and the importance of adhering to statutory procedures.