VIDYA VIKAS MANDAL AND ANR. versus THE EDUCATION OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 07-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIDY A VIKAS MANDAL AND ANR. 
r 
v. 
THE EDUCATION OFFICER AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
:¥ 
c 
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) 
Rules, 1981-Rule 37(6)-Compliance of-Inquiry Committee consisting of 
three members to communicate findings on charges against employee within 
time stipulated-Convenor of Inquiry Committee Submitting report within 
the time stipulated holding employee guilty-Other two members submitting 
report after the stipulated period and exonerating employee-Termination 
D order by Management-Set aside by courts below--Correctness of-Held: 
Rule 37(6) is mandatory in nature and was to be strictly complied with-
Report of two members and also of individual member not in accordance with 
~-
the mandatory provisions-Thus order of reinstatement with back wages set 
aside-Order passed by Management also set aside. 
E 
Charges were leveled against the school teacher. Inquiry Committee was 
constituted in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools 
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 consisting of three members. Under Rule 
37(6) the Inquiry Commiteee was required to communicate its findings to the 
Management within 10 days. Only the Convenor of the Inquiry Comittee sent 
F 
his report and findings within the time stipulated to the Managament that the 
)-
employee was guilty. They recommended punishment of termination from 
service. Appellant-Management issued termination order of respondent no.2. 
Appellant-Management then received the findings of the other two members 
of the Inquiry Committee much after the expiry of the stipulated period. Both 
these members exonerated the repondent no. 2 Respondent no.2 challenged 
G the termination order. Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that two of 
the three members of the Inquiry Commitee had exonerated respondent no.2 
and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. Aggrieved, Management 
1· 
~ 
filed a writ petition. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same. 
Management then filed Letters Patent Appeal which was also dismissed. 
H 
340 
VII'.lY A VlKAS MANDAL v. EDUCATION OFFICER 
341 
Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools 
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 which is mandatory in nature, has not 
been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three B 
members; only one member nominated by the Management has submittted his 
Inquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37(6) and admittedly. 
the other two members nominated by the employee and an independent 
member, have not submitted their report within the time prescribed under 
Rule 37(6). However, the Division Bench though noticed that the two members 
out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said C 
findings by the two members of the committee were submitted after the expiry 
of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). The report submitted by individual 
members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of 
three Members are appointed to inquire into a particular matter, all the three 
should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. Since D 
the report is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions, the courts below 
have committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it 
and thereby brdering the reinstatement with back wages. Since the 
reinstatement and back wages ordered are quite contrary to the mandatory 
provisions of Rule 37(6) the order passed by the Tribunal, and Single Judge 
and also of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. Also the order E 
passed by the Mangement based on the report submitted by the single member 
of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules is set aside. 
[Para 9) (345-F-H; 346-A-CJ 
1.2. In view of the order passed, rule 36(2) (a) is invoked. The F 
Management of the School is directed to constitute the Committee in 
accordance with sub-Rules (i) (ii) and (iii) of Rule 36(2)(a) to decide the matter 
afresh. The respondent no.2 would be treated under suspension and would be 
entitled to the subsistence allowance as per rules with effect from the date of 
termination of his services. [Para 10) [346-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1SDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 640 of2007. 
From the Final judgment and Order dated 14.

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