SHRI YOGIRAJ SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS. versus VIDYA (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 09-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
SHRI YOGIRAJ SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.
v.
VIDYA (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5296-5297 of 2019)
JULY 09, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1981 – rr.36 and 37(6) – Inquiry Committee and
Procedure of Inquiry – Original respondent (since deceased) was
terminated from the services after a disciplinary enquiry – Appeal
was filed before the School Tribunal, however, same was rejected –
Writ petition was filed by the respondent – High Court held that
there was breach of r.37(6) of the Rules, 1981 and order of the
termination was set aside – Review application filed by the
appellants was dismissed – On appeal, held: The report of the
Enquiry Committee was duly signed by all the three members – Two
members concluded that the charges were duly proved – The third
member of the Enquiry Committee, however, recorded his dissent
while signing the Report – It was evident that the requirements of
r.37(6) were duly fulfilled – Also, High Court did not consider all
the contentions on behalf of the contesting parties – Thus, the basis
on which the High Court allowed the writ petition was misconceived
– However, remanding the case would not serve the ends of justice
since employee has died and proceeding is pursued by her legal
representatives – Therefore, appellant-management directed to pay
Rupees one lakh fifty thousand to the respondents purely as an ex
gratia payment on humanitarian grounds in full and final settlement.
The original respondent was engaged as a head mistress
by the third appellant. A charge-sheet was issued to the employee
levelling many charges including a charge of misappropriation.
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the respondent.
A combined report was submitted by the Enquiry Committee.
One of the three members of the Committee expressed a
dissenting view. The services of the employee came to be
terminated. An appeal was filed before the School Tribunal,
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 933
933
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
934
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
however, same was rejected. Following, a writ petition was filed
by the respondent. High Court held that there was a breach of
rule 37(6) by the Committee, hence, order of the termination
was set aside. A review application filed by the appellants was
dismissed. Hence the present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  The Report of the Enquiry Committee was duly
signed by all the three members.  Two members concluded that
the charges were duly proved.  The third member of the Enquiry
Committee, however, recorded his dissent while signing the
Report.  It is evident that the requirements of Rule 37(6) of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of
Service) Rules 1981 were duly fulfilled. [Para 10] [938-G]
2.  The basis on which the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the employee was misconceived. The impugned
judgments and orders of the High Court are accordingly set aside.
The High Court has also observed, in the course of its judgment,
that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting
parties had made submissions on “various points”.  The High
Court did not consider it appropriate to deal with all the
contentions on the basis that the decision of this Court in Vidya
Vikas Mandal governs the case. This Court would have ordinarily
remanded the proceedings to the High Court for considering
those grounds of challenge.  However, the respondents have
stated before the Court that an order of remand, at this stage,
would not serve the ends of justice since the employee has died
and the proceedings are being pursued by her legal
representatives. Hence, the respondents have submitted that it
would be appropriate if the management pays some ex gratia
amount in full and final settlement. Therefore, an amount of
Rupees one lakh fifty thousand shall be paid to the respondents
purely as an ex gratia payment on humanitarian grounds in full
and final settlement. [Paras 13-15][940-C-G]
Vidya Vikas Mandal v. the Education Officer
2007 (2) SCALE 589 : [2007] 2 SCR 340
– distinguished.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
935
Case Law Reference
[2007] 2 SCR 340
 distinguished
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5296-
5297 of 2019
From the Judgment and Orders dated 16.12.2015 and 01.03.2017
of the High Court  of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2006 and in Civil A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.