VIDYA VIKAS MANDAL Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the Respondent No. l and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No. 66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. A charge-sheet was served on the delinquent employee. Seven charges were levelled against him. Apart from the charge of harassment and misbehaviour with girl students, other charges of inefficiency, in-sub-ordination and corruption were also specified against respondent No.2, namely, Subhash Lingawar. A Inquiry Committee consisting of three members was constituted, which consisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar (Nominated by the Management), Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar (Deliquent' s representative) and Mrs. V.S. Ramteke (State Awardee teacher). Respondent No.2 submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. The inquiry was initiated and the first meeting was held on 10.10.1998. During the pendency of the inquiry, respondent No.2 was not suspended and he continued to attend to his duties. In the inquiry proceedings, it was found that the respondent No.2 was being non-co-operative, two members of the Inquiry Committee, i.e. Nominee of respondent No.2 and the State Awardee teacher were trying to stall the proceedings. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37 (4) of the Rules, the Inquiry Committee sent to respondent No.2 the summary proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses for him to submit his explanation within 7 days under Rule 37 (5). Thus, respondent No.2 had time of 7 days till 28.2.2000 to submit his explanation. The respondent No.2 failed to submit his explanation to the Inquiry Committee. Thus, under Rule 37 (6), the Inquiry Committee was required to communicate its findings to the Management within 10 days. The requirement was mandatory and the period of 10 days expired on 9.3.2000. Mr. P.S. Donadkar, the management nominee and the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee sent his report and findings to the Management. In this report, the aforesaid Member and Convenor of the Inquiry Committee found all charges proved against respondent No.2 and having been found guilty, punishment of termination from service was recommended against respondent No.2. It was also recorded in the aforesaid report and findings that the other two members of the Inquiry Committee had not submitted their findings and that during the course of inquiry they had sought to favour respondent No.2 and that their attitude was not appropriate. As the appellant Management received the findings of only the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee within the period of 10 days mandated by Rule 37 (6) of the Rules, it decided to terminate the services of respondent No.2 on the basis of the recommendation and the findings received. The appellant Management issued order terminating the service of respondent No.2 w.e.f. 1.4.2000, thereby terminating the service of respondent No.2.