MOTIRAM NAIK SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No.6418/2019, challenges the judgment of the learned School Tribunal, whereby though all the issues framed have been answered in favour of the petitioners (page 115), the termination of the respondent has been set aside in exercise of the powers under Sec. 11(2)(d) R/w Sec. 30 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. The only discussion according to the learned counsel for the petitioners in that regard is para 50 and 51 (Page 141), wherein it has been held that charge Nos.1 and 3 are not proved and the other charges were not so serious as to necessitate the termination of an employee, who is just 39 years of age and the respondent be granted one opportunity to improve himself (page 142).

(2.) Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners by inviting my attention to the language of Sec. 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, contends, that for exercise of the discretion conferred under clause (d) of Subsection 2 of Sec. 11 of the aforesaid Act, a finding is necessarily required to be rendered by the learned Tribunal that the order of dismissal was in contravention of any law, including any rules made under the Act, contract or conditions of service or was otherwise illegal or improper, only upon which finding being recorded that clause (d) for awarding lessor punishment could be invoked. Inviting my attention to the findings by the learned Tribunal on the issues Nos. 1 to 7 (page 115), which all have been answered in favour of the petitioners, it is contended, that awarding of lessor punishment by the learned Tribunal was therefore, not justified. It is also contended, that though the finding has been rendered that charge Nos.1 and 3 are not proved (para 46, 47, page 139), in fact, according to him, in view of the admission made by the respondent himself that he had lodged complaints against the Management, which complaints subsequently have been found to be incorrect, the findings regarding charge no.1 and 3 have not been proved could not have been rendered by the learned Tribunal (page Nos. 14, 29 and 35). By inviting my attention to the charges, it is contended, that the charges as levelled in charge No.2 depict a very serious state of affairs inasmuch as the respondent has failed to perform the duties and responsibilities as imposed upon him by the very nature of the his appointment (page 30). Charge No.4 is equally serious and indicates absenteeism without permission, thereby affecting the studies of the students (page 39). Charge No.5 according to him (page 43), clearly indicates insubordination by abusing the Headmaster. It is therefore, contended, that considering the serious nature of the charges, the punishment of termination, which was imposed upon the respondent-employee was just and proper.

(3.) It is therefore, contended, relying upon Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and others Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, (2008) 5 SCC 569, para Nos. 20 and 21 that the jurisdiction of the High Court (In this case the Tribunal) was limited as its power to interfere with the disciplinary matters is circumscribed and it cannot be set aside only on sympathy and sentiments and once it is found all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Court would not ordinarily interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee and such interference by the superior Courts on the doctrine of proportionality would be very rare. It is therefore, contended, that the impugned order which sets aside the order of termination and imposes a punishment in place, of withholding the first due one year increment of the respondent-employee cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.