SULOCHANA DAULATRAO THAKARE Vs. SANGAM SHIKSHAN SANSTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who were the original petitioners in the above mentioned Letters Patent Appeals, are the School Teachers who were aggrieved by their respective orders of termination from service by the school management and who had approached the School Tribunal by filing appeals under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") challenging the legality and validity of the impugned orders of termination. They appear to have been dismissed from the employment way of punishment for alleged acts of their misconducts after an enquiry held by the school management. The School Tribunal by impugned order dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants by a common judgment and order dated 27-3-1986.

(2.) THE appellants were aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the school Tribunal and, therefore, they approached this Court by filing writ petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the School Tribunal on the grounds inter alia of the inquiry not being in accordance with the Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules. The appellants had also denied the charges of misconduct levelled against them and they also challenged the legality and validity of the suspension from service during the pendency of inquiry. According to the appellants they had no reasonable and adequate opportunity of defending themselves in the inquiry as the mandatory procedures prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act were not observed. The learned Single Judge by his common judgment and order dated 1-12-1999 was pleased to dismiss the writ petitions by recording the grounds and reasons for his conclusion to dismiss the petitions. The appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeals under article 15 of the Letters Patent questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) BEFORE we deal with the contention of Shri P. C. Madkholkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is pertinent to note that one of the dismissed teachers viz. , Smt. Nirmala Gowardhan Ukey appears to have approached the School Tribunal to challenge her order of dismissal from employment by filing an appeal under section 9 of the Act before the School tribunal. She was earlier in the point of time. She also appears to have raised the very same points before the School Tribunal and lost at that stage. The School Tribunal had dismissed her appeal by recording the reasons in his order dated 27-3-1986. The said school teacher was aggrieved by the said order and therefore, she filed a writ petition before this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. At the relevant time, under the Rules of the High Court Appellate Side, the petition was placed before the Division Bench of this Court. On behalf of the said teacher, the very same points were urged before the learned Judges of the Division Bench. By their judgment and order dated 5-3-1990 the writ petition was dismissed. We have closely gone through the judgment of the Division Bench and we find that the learned Judges have dealt with the very same points of challenge to the orders of termination before us. The principal issues raised before the learned Judges were in respect of the Constitution of the Inquiry committee not being in compliance with the Rules and that the nominee of the teachers in the Inquiry Committee was not intimated about the date of the inquiry and therefore, he was not able to take part in the inquiries held against the teachers. On both the points, the learned Judges have set out the facts in detail and have turned down the contentions of the petitioner teacher before them. The Division Bench entirely agreed with the findings recorded by the School Tribunal and dismissed the said writ petition. We may further add that the Division Bench has considered all the material aspects and grounds raised before them against the judgment and order of the School Tribunal. The Division Bench has concluded that the inquiry held against the teacher was not in violation of the prescribed Rules and therefore there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of termination and consequently in the final judgment of the Tribunal. The Division Bench positively held that Inquiry Committee was properly constituted and the intimation regarding the date of the enquiry was given to the petitioner and her nominee on the Enquiry Committee but both failed to participate in the enquiry proceedings.