Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee of a private school, was subjected to disciplinary action resulting in punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as internal or external examiner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who by order dated 20.11.2009 refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that under Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, an appeal lies only if the punishment is withholding of increment for a period not exceeding one year. The petitioner then approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court examined the scheme of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, particularly Section 9 which provides for appeal to the School Tribunal against removal, dismissal, termination, supersession, or reduction, and Rule 29 which provides for appeal to the Deputy Director against certain punishments. The Court noted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was not a minor penalty and the Deputy Director's interpretation of Rule 29 was too restrictive. The Court held that the Deputy Director ought to have entertained the appeal and decided it on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Director for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appeal - Maintainability - Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The Deputy Director of Education refused to entertain the petitioner's appeal against punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as examiner, on the ground that under Rule 29, appeal lies only if the punishment is withholding of increment for a period not exceeding one year - The High Court held that the punishment imposed was not a minor penalty and the Deputy Director ought to have entertained the appeal - The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Education erred in refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal against punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as examiner, on the ground that such appeal lies only if the punishment is withholding of increment for a period not exceeding one year.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 20.11.2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act
- 1977
- Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules
- 1981
- Scope of appeal to School Tribunal
- Scope of appeal to Deputy Director of Education
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 123
Writ Petition No.5607/2010
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.D. Kode
Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar for Petitioner, Mr. R.V. Gaikwad for Respondents 1 to 3, Mr. A.S. Sonare, AGP for Respondent no.4
Kewalram s/o Tulshiram Kiranapure
Manoharbhai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its President; Manoharbhai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its Secretary; Mahatma Gandhi Junior College, through its Principal; The Dy. Director of Education, Nagpur Region, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal against disciplinary punishment.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 and direction to the Deputy Director to entertain the appeal.
Filing Reason
The Deputy Director of Education refused to entertain the petitioner's appeal against punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as examiner, on the ground that under Rule 29, appeal lies only if the punishment is withholding of increment for a period not exceeding one year.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Director of Education passed the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 refusing to entertain the appeal.
Issues
Whether the Deputy Director of Education erred in refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal against punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as examiner, on the ground that under Rule 29, appeal lies only if the punishment is withholding of increment for a period not exceeding one year.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 20.11.2009 refusing to entertain the appeal is erroneous.
The Deputy Director of Education informed the petitioner to approach the School Tribunal, but under Section 9 of the 1977 Act, appeal to the School Tribunal is maintainable only against removal, dismissal, termination, supersession, and reduction.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deputy Director of Education erred in refusing to entertain the appeal on the ground that the punishment of withholding two increments permanently, denial of next time bound promotion, and debarment from functioning as examiner is not a minor penalty and the appeal ought to have been entertained under Rule 29 of the 1981 Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the contention that impugned order dated 20.11.2009 refusing to entertain appeal filed by the petitioner is erroneous.
Under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, the appeal to the School Tribunal is maintainable only against the removal, dismissal, otherwise termination super session and reduction.
Rule 29 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 framed under the 1977 Act contemplates an appeal to the Deputy Director within a period of 45 days from the receipt of order of punishment.
Procedural History
The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary punishment. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, who by order dated 20.11.2009 refused to entertain it. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 9, Section 4, Section 16
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 29
