Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sulochana Bhanudas Ugale, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal, Solapur, dated 30.7.2014, which dismissed her Appeal No. 68 of 2008. The petitioner claimed she was appointed as a teacher on 8.9.2003 at Hanuman Vidyalaya, Savargaon Guravachi, and transferred to Hanuman Vidyalaya, Khatgaon on 1.10.2004. She alleged that from 15.6.2007, she was disallowed from signing the muster roll, effectively terminating her services orally. The management filed a half-page written statement denying any appointment, stating they did not know the petitioner, and that she never worked for them. However, the management later, in a subsequent written statement, claimed she was appointed on a temporary basis for two academic years and that she remained unauthorizedly absent from 17.9.2004, leading to her name being struck off from 30.9.2004. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal without examining this contradiction or calling for records. The High Court noted that the management's initial denial contradicted its later claim of temporary appointment and unauthorized absence. The management failed to produce attendance registers, appointment orders, or any documents to support its case. The Court held that the School Tribunal erred in not drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for non-production of documents. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing the management to produce all relevant records. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Teacher Termination - Burden of Proof - Management's Contradictory Stand - The management initially denied any appointment but later claimed temporary appointment and unauthorized absence. The School Tribunal failed to examine this contradiction and did not draw adverse inference for non-production of attendance registers and appointment orders. Held that the management's failure to produce records and contradictory stand vitiates the Tribunal's order. (Paras 8-11) B) Evidence Act - Adverse Inference - Non-Production of Documents - Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When a party in possession of relevant documents fails to produce them, the court may draw an adverse inference. The management did not produce attendance registers or appointment orders despite claiming the petitioner was absent. Held that the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the management. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the School Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the management's contradictory stand and failure to produce relevant records.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the School Tribunal dated 30.7.2014 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the School Tribunal for fresh consideration. The management is directed to produce all relevant records including attendance registers and appointment orders. The School Tribunal shall decide the appeal afresh within six months.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on management to establish employment relationship
- Adverse inference for non-production of documents
- Duty of School Tribunal to examine evidence
