Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed by the Head Master (brother of the President) and the President of an educational institution challenging the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 30/03/2016. The School Tribunal had allowed Appeal No.35/2014 filed by the respondent teacher, Smt. Alka Namdeo Khalekar, and quashed her termination from service effective from 16/04/2014. The teacher was initially terminated after a departmental enquiry, which was set aside. A second enquiry was conducted, which was also found to be vitiated due to non-compliance of Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules). The School Tribunal set aside the termination and directed reinstatement. The Management sought to conduct a third denovo enquiry. The High Court framed the issue as to how many times the Management could be permitted to conduct a denovo enquiry after earlier enquiries were quashed. The Court held that permitting repeated enquiries would be an abuse of process and would allow the Management to victimize the employee. The Court dismissed both petitions, upholding the School Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Denovo Enquiry - Repeated Enquiries - Management cannot be permitted to conduct repeated denovo enquiries after earlier enquiries are quashed for non-compliance of Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981 (MEPS Rules) - The School Tribunal quashed the termination of the appellant teacher on the ground that the second enquiry was vitiated due to non-compliance of Rules 36 and 37 - The High Court held that permitting the Management to conduct a third enquiry would be an abuse of process and would allow the Management to victimize the employee indefinitely - The petitions were dismissed (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
How many times should the Management be permitted to conduct a denovo enquiry after the first departmental enquiry and the subsequent enquiry is quashed and set aside for being vitiated on account of the noncompliance of Rule 36 and/or 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 or for any other connected reason?
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The judgment of the School Tribunal dated 30/03/2016 is upheld. The Management is not permitted to conduct any further enquiry against the teacher.
Law Points
- Denovo enquiry after quashing of earlier enquiry for non-compliance of Rules 36 and 37 of MEPS Rules
- 1981 is not permissible
- Management cannot be permitted to conduct repeated enquiries to victimize an employee
- School Tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside termination for procedural irregularities
