Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by six teachers employed at Vivek Vardhini Prathamik Vidyamandir, Udgir, challenging the penalty imposed by the school management (respondent Nos.3 and 4) of stopping one increment permanently. The petitioners were teachers at the school run by Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. The penalty was imposed based on a preliminary enquiry where the petitioners were given an opportunity to submit their say. The petitioners contended that the penalty of stopping one increment permanently is a major penalty under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and therefore, a full departmental enquiry ought to have been conducted before imposing such penalty. The respondents argued that the penalty was minor and relied on Rules 29 and 31 of the said Rules. The court examined the classification of penalties under Rule 31, which lists major penalties including stoppage of increment permanently. The court held that since the increment was stopped permanently and not for a limited period, it constitutes a major penalty. Consequently, the employer was required to conduct a departmental enquiry as per Rule 29. The court found that only a preliminary enquiry was held, which was insufficient for imposing a major penalty. Accordingly, the court quashed and set aside the penalty order and directed the respondents to conduct a proper departmental enquiry if they wished to proceed further. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Major Penalty - Stopping of Increment Permanently - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rules 29 and 31 - The court considered whether the penalty of stopping one increment permanently imposed on teachers based only on a preliminary enquiry was valid. Held that such penalty is a major penalty under Rule 31 and requires a full departmental enquiry under Rule 29, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of stopping one increment permanently imposed on the petitioners by the school management without conducting a departmental enquiry is valid under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the penalty order of stopping one increment permanently, and directed the respondents to conduct a proper departmental enquiry if they wish to proceed further. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Major penalty requires departmental enquiry
- Stopping increment permanently is major penalty
- Preliminary enquiry insufficient for major penalty
- Rule 31 classification of penalties
- Rule 29 procedure for major penalty
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 12
Writ Petition No. 6207 of 2013
T.V. Nalawade, Sunil K. Kotwal
Mr. V.P. Golwear (holding for Mr. A.R. Joshi) for petitioners, Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar for respondent No.1, Mr. P.R. Tandale for respondent No.2, Mr. S.B. Yawalkar for respondent Nos.3 and 4
Prabhakar s/o Mallikarjun Suryawanshi, Nagnath Sangram Rakshale, Pradip s/o Virpakshappa Mahajan, Hanmant s/o Vinayak Mahajan, Sow. Meena w/o Manoharrao Kale, Sow. Ashwinin w/o Santram Kothawale
The State of Maharashtra, The Education Officer (Primary Section), Zilla Parishad, Latur, Vivek Vardhini Prathamik Vidyamandir, Udgir, Lokmanya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging penalty of stopping one increment permanently imposed on teachers by school management.
Remedy Sought
Quashing and setting aside the penalty order of stopping one increment permanently.
Filing Reason
The penalty was imposed based on a preliminary enquiry without conducting a departmental enquiry, which the petitioners argue is required for a major penalty.
Issues
Whether the penalty of stopping one increment permanently is a major penalty under Rule 31 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.
Whether the employer was required to conduct a departmental enquiry under Rule 29 before imposing such penalty.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that stopping one increment permanently is a major penalty and requires a departmental enquiry.
Respondents argued that the penalty was minor and relied on Rules 29 and 31 to justify the procedure followed.
Ratio Decidendi
The penalty of stopping one increment permanently is a major penalty under Rule 31 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and cannot be imposed without a full departmental enquiry as required under Rule 29.
Judgment Excerpts
The submissions made and record show that only on the basis of preliminary enquiry, after giving opportunity to have say, for the so called misconduct the aforesaid penalty is imposed by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as one increment is stopped permanently and it is not for the one year, that penalty is major penalty and the employer ought to have conducted Departmental Enquiry for imposing such penalty.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 6207 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging the penalty imposed by the school management. The court heard both sides and disposed of the petition by the present judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 29, Rule 31
