Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha, a school management, challenged the judgment and order dated 24.9.2015 of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, which allowed Appeal No. 5 of 2013 filed by the employee, Bhausaheb Sonaji Kakade, and granted him reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The employee was a trained graduate (B.A., B.Ed.) appointed as an Assistant Teacher on probation for two years from 2.8.2008. The Education Officer approved his appointment on probation by order dated 20.2.2009. The employee worked until 30.4.2009 and then remained absent. The management issued a show cause notice on 15.6.2009, but the employee did not respond. The management then passed a resolution on 30.6.2009 treating the employee as having voluntarily abandoned service. The employee filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, which allowed the appeal and ordered reinstatement. The management challenged this order in the High Court. The key legal issue was whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, a notice to the employee is mandatory before concluding voluntary abandonment. The court held that Rule 16(2) requires the management to issue a notice to the employee before treating the employee as having voluntarily abandoned service. The management failed to issue such a notice, and therefore the termination was invalid. The court upheld the School Tribunal's order of reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages, and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Voluntary Abandonment of Employment - Notice Requirement - Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - The court considered whether a notice to a probationer employee is mandatory before concluding voluntary abandonment - Held that Rule 16(2) requires the management to issue a notice to the employee before treating the employee as having voluntarily abandoned service, and failure to do so renders the termination invalid (Paras 4, 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, issuance of a notice to the temporary/probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 24.9.2015 is upheld. The employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Law Points
- Voluntary abandonment of employment requires notice to employee before conclusion
- Rule 16(2) MEPS Rules mandatory
- Probationer entitled to protection against arbitrary termination
- Reinstatement without backwages appropriate
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (05) 12
Writ Petition No. 10845 of 2015
Shri V.V.Deshmukh (Petitioners), Shri H.S.Surve (Respondent 1), Shri A.P.Basarkar, AGP (Respondent 2), Shri S.V.Dixit (Respondent 3), Amicus curiae: S/Shri Ashok Patil, T.K.Prabhakaran, S.V.Dankh, Yatin Thole & Y.R.Marlapalle
Magasvargiya Shikshan Sanstha through its President and Secretary
Bhausaheb Sonaji Kakade, Education Officer (S), Zilla Parishad, Jalna, and Saraswati Vidyalalay through its Head Master
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the School Tribunal allowing the employee's appeal and ordering reinstatement.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (management) sought to quash the School Tribunal's order dated 24.9.2015.
Filing Reason
The management challenged the School Tribunal's order granting reinstatement to the employee who was treated as having voluntarily abandoned service.
Previous Decisions
The School Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 5 of 2013 filed by the employee, granting reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Issues
Whether under Rule 16(2) of the MEPS Rules, issuance of a notice to the temporary/probationer employee before concluding voluntary abandonment is necessary?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner/Management argued that the employee voluntarily abandoned service and no notice was required.
Employee argued that no notice was given before treating him as having abandoned service, violating Rule 16(2).
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 mandates that before treating an employee as having voluntarily abandoned service, the management must issue a notice to the employee. Failure to issue such notice renders the termination invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
"Whether under Rule 16(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, issuance of a notice to the temporary / probationer employee before arriving at a conclusion that he/she has voluntarily abandoned employment would be a necessity?"
"The management failed to issue a notice to the employee before treating him as having voluntarily abandoned service."
Procedural History
The employee was appointed on 2.8.2008 on probation. He worked until 30.4.2009 and remained absent. Management issued show cause notice on 15.6.2009, but no response. Management passed resolution on 30.6.2009 treating employee as having voluntarily abandoned service. Employee filed Appeal No. 5 of 2013 before School Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on 24.9.2015. Management filed Writ Petition No. 10845 of 2015 in Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 6.5.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 16(2)
