BHAGWAN PRATISTHAN Vs. BABANRAO DHAKNE VIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.12.2017 passed by learned Presiding Offcer of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No.7 of 2017. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.12.2017 the petitioner No.1 Bhagwan Pratishthan- Educational Institution (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-management) has preferred writ petition no.5339 of 2018, whereas respondent no.1/employee has preferred writ petition No.7374 of 2018 to the extent of back wages of 30% from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement as awarded by the School Tribunal.

(2.) Brief facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, are as follows :-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- management in writ petition no.5339 of 2018 submits that fndings of the learned Presiding Offcer of the School Tribunal, Aurangabad are contrary to the record. Learned counsel submits that enquiry has been conducted as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and M.E.P.S. Rules thereunder (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'MEPS Rules, 1981'). Learned counsel submits that respondent no.1-employee used to remain absent consistently and in consequence thereof, salary was not paid to him. Thus, respondent no.1-employee has made a complaint to the Secretary, Education Department to appoint an Administrator. The documents on record indicates that respondent no.1- employee himself had accepted that he was absent and requested the Management not to take action against him. Respondent no.1-employee remained absent from duty without permission from July 1998 to January 2009. Learned counsel submits respondent No.1- employee made a complaint to Secretary, Education Department dated 17.01.2012 to appoint Administrator. It is mentioned in the complaint dated 17.1.2012 that, if the Administrator is not appointed, the respondent no.1 (original appellant) and his family will commit a suicide. The copy of complaint dated 17.1.2012 is annexed herewith as Exhibit P-22. Respondent no.1-employee has admitted about deduction of his salary due to his absenteeism. Learned counsel submits that out of 3000 working days approximately in 12 years respondent no.1-employee remained absent for near about 350 days without permission. Learned counsel submits that during this period, respondent no.1-employee had availed all the leaves including the medical leaves and even thereafter remained absent for the said period of 350 days. Furthermore, respondent no.1-employee had fled false complaint in the year 2012-2013 against the President of the Institution namely Vinayak Wagh and his three sons. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.1-employee has not only remained absent on duties unauthorizedly but behaved arrogantly and made various false complaints to the Education Department against the Management for appointment of the Administrator. Learned counsel submits that the charges levelled as against respondent no.1-employee proved on the basis of uncontroverted documents produced by the petitioner-management. Respondent no.1-employee has also admitted about his absenteeism and thus it is the best evidence against him. Learned counsel submits that service career of respondent no.1- employee was not satisfactory and he had almost created terror in the school by his indisciplined behaviour, willful and persistent negligence of duty and remaining absent from the duty. Respondent no.1- employee has attempted to malign image of the school and school management and persistently acted against the school and its management. The petitioner- management took lenient view and extended suffcient opportunities to the respondent-employee to improve himself, but his misconduct was reached at intolerable level. There are various instances unmistakenly point out the conduct and behaviour of the respondent- employee. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.1-employee took loans from the local co-operative banks by using forged signatures of the Head Master and got prepared duplicate stamps of the head master. Even respondent-employee had confessed about same.