Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6778 of 2012). Case: Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 3 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 6767 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6778 of 2012)
CounselFor Appellant: Gaurav Agrawal, Adv. and For Respondents: Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sachin J. Patil and Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs.
JudgesG.S. Singhvi and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
IssueMaharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 - Sections 2, 2(7), 8, 9, 9(1), 9(2), 10, 11, 12, 16, 16(1), 16(2); Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 6N, 6(6); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A, 25, 25F, 33(2), 33C(2); Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106; Contempt of Courts Act,...
Citation2013 (11) SCALE 268
Judgement DateAugust 12, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

G.S. Singhvi, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal filed against order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench is whether the Appellant is entitled to wages for the period during which she was forcibly kept out of service by the management of the school.

  3. The Appellant was appointed as a teacher in Nandanvan Vidya Mandir (Primary School) run by a trust established and controlled by Bagade family. The grant in aid given by the State Government, which included rent for the building was received by Bagade family because the premises belonged to one of its members, namely, Shri Dulichand. In 2005, the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad raised a tax bill of Rs. 79,974/- by treating the property as commercial. Thereupon, the Headmistress of the school, who was also President of the Trust, addressed a letter to all the employees including the Appellant requiring them to contribute a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month towards the tax liability. The Appellant refused to comply with the dictate of the Headmistress. Annoyed by this, the management issued as many as 25 memos to the Appellant and then placed her under suspension vide letter dated 14.11.2006. She submitted reply to each and every memorandum and denied the allegations. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad did not approve the Appellant's suspension. However, the letter of suspension was not revoked. She was not even paid subsistence allowance in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, 'the Rules') framed Under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act').

  4. Writ Petition No. 8404 of 2006 filed by the Appellant questioning her suspension was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide order dated 21.3.2007 and it was declared that the Appellant will be deemed to have rejoined her duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits in terms of Rule 37(2)(f) of the Rules and that the payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that order read as under:

  5. Considering the order we intend passing it is not necessary for us to deal with the rival contentions of the parties. That will be for the Inquiry Committee to decide. In view of the apprehensions expressed regarding the inquiry being dragged on unnecessarily, it is necessary to safeguard the interests of the Petitioner as well.

  6. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in the following terms.

    (i) The Inquiry Committee shall conclude the proceedings and pass a final order on or before 31.5.2007.

    (ii) The Petitioner shall be at liberty to have her case represented by Smt. Sulbha Panditrao Munde.

    (iii) The Petitioner/her representative shall appear, in the first instance, before the Inquiry Committee at 11 a.m. on 26.3.2007 and, thereafter, as directed by the Inquiry Committee.

    (iv) The Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Rule 37(2)(f) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, as specified in paragraph 11 of the order and judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Hamid Khan Nayyar S/o. Habib Khan v. Education Officer, Amravati and Ors. (supra). The Petitioner shall be deemed to have rejoined the duties from 14.3.2007 and entitled to consequential benefits that would flow out of Rule 37(2)(f). The payment of arrears shall be the liability of the management.

  7. In the meanwhile, the management issued notice dated 28.12.2006 for holding an inquiry against the Appellant under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules. The Appellant nominated Smt. Sulbha Panditrao Munde to appear before the Inquiry Committee, but Smt. Munde was not allowed to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Committee conducted ex parte proceedings and the management terminated the Appellant's service vide order dated 15.6.2007.

  8. The Appellant challenged the aforesaid order Under Section 9 of the Act. In the appeal filed by her on 25.6.2007, the Appellant pleaded that the action taken by the management was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. She further pleaded that the sole object of the inquiry was to teach her a lesson for refusing to comply with the illegal demand of the management.

  9. The management contested the appeal and pleaded that the action taken by it was legal and justified because the Appellant had been found guilty of misconduct. It was further pleaded that the inquiry was held in consonance with the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice.

  10. By an order dated 20.6.2009, the Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division (for short, 'the Tribunal') allowed the appeal and quashed the termination of the Appellant's service. He also directed the management to pay full back wages to the Appellant. The Tribunal considered the Appellant's plea that she had not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing and observed:

    Now let us test for what purpose and for what subject inquiry was initiated in what manner inquiry was conducted, which witnesses have been examined and how injury was conclude. I have already demonstrate above that starting point against this Appellant is calling upon staff members collection of fund for payment for tax dues page 54 of appeal memo. All the staff members have objected this joining hands together page 58 of appeal. Fact finding committee have submitted its report Exhibit 62. Report of Education Officer (Primary) in regard to the proposal of appointment of Administrator page 71. If we see issuance of memo by Head Mistress, I observe that language which is used to revengeful against this Appellant. It seems that attitude towards this Appellant was of indecent and I also observed that behaviour of the Appellant have also instigated Head Mistress for the same. Language is of law standard use in the letter by imputing defamed language and humiliation to the Appellant.

    If we see memos, we can find that some memos are of silly count i.e. late for 3 minutes page 95, query about the examination page 93 to which Appellant have replied that when no examinations were held where is the question of getting inquiry by the parents page 96. In regard to the memo, in regard to the black dress on 15.08.2005 and 06.12.2005 and about issuance of show cause notice for issuing false affidavit page 143.

    We can find attitude of this Head Master towards Appellant. Three minute late is very silly ground query about examination which was not at all held, wearing of black dress during course of argument there was argument on photograph, however, no such photograph is submitted on record. In this regard during course of argument, it was brought to my notice that on 15.08.2005 this Appellant have wore black colour blouse, however, she had wore white sari on her person. First thing is that there is no such rule about so called colour that it is bogus colour or this colour is being used for protesting or otherwise. How and why Head Mistress and Management have made issue of this black colour blouse I cannot understand. I have gone through the whole record but I do not find any circular issued by Head Mistress by which all the staff members have been called upon to come in dress for this function. So in the absence of such circular, how it can be an issue of inquiry.

    Another aspect is that one of the staff Vijay Gedam have lodged appeal before this Tribunal in favour of him, this Appellant and one another staff teacher have swear affidavit. I do not find how this issue can be a subject of inquiry that Appellant have swear false affidavit. Is Head Mistress having authority to say that this Appellant have swear false affidavit. Here I find 5 to 6 staff members have supported this Appellant, at the same time some teachers have also come forward this Head Mistress. They were in dilemma to whom they may favour. So over all attitude of this Head Mistress against this Appellant is revengeful with ulterior motive to drag this Appellant in inquiry proceeding.

    I gone through the statement recorded of the witnesses. I find that all the statements are general in nature and it is repetition of statement of first witness Surajkumar Khobragade. Nobody has made statement specifically with date and incident. The deposition is a general statement which is already in memos which have been issue by the Head Mistress to the Appellant.

    More important in this regard that no cross examination of witnesses by the Appellant. In the statement of witnesses, I do not find any endorsement that Appellant was absent or Appellant is present, she declined to cross examine or otherwise. These statements have been concluded that witnesses have stated before inquiry committee, that is all. If we read first statement of first witnesses we can find carry forward of the statement for other witnesses by some minor change in the statement.

    One crucial aspect in regard to the proceeding is that this Head Mistress who had issued more than 25 bulky memos against this Appellant and on whose complaint or grievances this inquiry was initiate, have not been examined by the inquiry committee. I am surprised that why such a key witness is not examined. In reply this Appellant have put her grievances against Head Mistress. By taking advantage of this Chief Executive Officer of the inquiry i.e. Sonia Bagale called upon written explanation from Head Mistress to cover up complaint and grievances of the Appellant. It is on 21.05.2007, page 777, 778 and 781 by this explanation again one issues have been brought which were not subject matter of the chargesheet. So it is serious lacuna in this inquiry proceeding that witnesses Head Mistress have not been examined.

    The Tribunal then adverted to the charges levelled against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
3 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT