Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Termination of Employee Without Inquiry. Termination of a teacher without holding a disciplinary inquiry violates principles of natural justice and Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 91
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat, was an employee of N.E.S High School and Junior College, managed by Respondent No.1 Trust. He was terminated from service without any disciplinary inquiry or show cause notice. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the termination as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act). The respondents argued that the termination was justified due to misconduct, but the court found that no inquiry was held. The court held that termination without inquiry is illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The court also directed the respondents to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Termination Without Inquiry - Violation of Natural Justice - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, Section 5 - The petitioner, a teacher, was terminated without any disciplinary inquiry or show cause notice. The court held that such termination is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and Section 5 of the MEPS Act, which requires prior approval of the education officer for termination. The court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. (Paras 1-10)

B) Service Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The court, after finding the termination illegal, directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. (Paras 9-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner's services without holding a disciplinary inquiry and without prior approval from the education authorities is legal and valid.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to reinstate petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages from date of termination till reinstatement. Respondents to pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to petitioner.

Law Points

  • Termination without inquiry is illegal
  • Principles of natural justice must be followed
  • Section 5 of MEPS Act requires prior approval for termination
  • Reinstatement with back wages is appropriate remedy
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 16

Writ Petition No. 14979 of 2022

2026-06-08

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

Mr. Rahul Kadam, Mr. Rushikesh Barge, Mr. P.J. Gavhane

Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat

Nimsakhar Society and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging termination of employment without disciplinary inquiry.

Remedy Sought

Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was terminated without any show cause notice or disciplinary inquiry.

Issues

Whether termination without inquiry is legal? Whether principles of natural justice were violated? Whether Section 5 of MEPS Act requires prior approval for termination?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that termination was illegal as no inquiry was held. Respondents argued that termination was justified due to misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

Termination of an employee without holding a disciplinary inquiry and without prior approval under Section 5 of the MEPS Act is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The appropriate remedy is reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr. Barge, learned for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent – State. Writ Petition is filed on 05.11.2022 by Bharat Ramchandra Shirsat, employee of N.E.S High School and Junior College...

Procedural History

Writ Petition filed on 05.11.2022. Heard on 08.06.2026 and allowed.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977: Section 5
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Condonation of Delay of 3117 Days in Land Acquisition Appeal Due to Sufficient Cause. Liberal Approach Adopted for Illiterate Claimants Under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Quashes Confiscation Appeal Order for Lack of Jurisdiction — Sessions Judge Not Competent to Hear Appeal Under Section 61(D) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as Applicable to Goa. The appeal against confiscation of vehicle for...