KASHIRAM S/O RAJARAM KATHANE Vs. BHARTIYA R B DAMLE GRAM SUDHAR TATHA SHIKSHAN PRASAR SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher on 26-6-1969 in the school belonging to the 1st respondent. He was later confirmed on 26-9-1971 and was promoted as Head Master with effect from 1-7-1973. While he was so working as Head Master, on certain allegations of misconduct his explanation was called for by the 2nd respondent and he submitted his explanation. As his explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the management decided to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, a committee was constituted, as is required under Rule 36(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called as the Rules), to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. The charges were duly framed and served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply to the charges. The Committee found him guilty and decided to terminate his services and the management implemented the said decision by issuing Annexure-12 with effect from 1-9-1986. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 118/86 before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Annexure-XII dated 31-8-1986 as well as the judgment of the School Tribunal dated 29-4-1987- Annexure-XVI.

(2.) The learned Counsel Shri Aney contended that the very enquiry as well as the decision are vitiated on account of disqualification incurred by the 2nd respondent by her entering the witness box and swearing in support of the charge. The precise point urged by the learned Counsel is, the whole proceeding is vitiated because the same was in violation of natural justice. It is maintained by the learned Counsel that in view of the fact that respondent No. 2 incurred disqualification, she could not have participated in the decision making process on account of her interest as well as bias which is spontaneous in her giving evidence in support of the charge. Though the petitioner also has a case that the findings entered by the Committee are not sustainable because the same are not supported by the evidence on record, the point urged by the learned Counsel is that the decision is vitiated because of violation of principles of natural justice as a result of respondent No. 2 participating in the decision making process.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents 1 & 2, Shri Mardikar, maintained that there is absolutely no violation of natural justice because the petitioner got enough opportunity to lead evidence and also to cross-examine the 2nd respondent. Alternatively, it was submitted by Shri Mardikar that, at any rate, natural justice stands excluded because of the doctrine of necessity. The point urged by the learned Counsel is, with due regard to Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules, the presence of 2nd respondent in the Committee cannot be dispensed with. That being the position, inspite of the alleged disqualification incurred by the 2nd respondent on her giving evidence in support of the charge the 2nd respondent is bound and entitled to participate in the proceeding till it reached the ultimate conclusion. In such circumstance, according to the learned Counsel, the finding of the Committee cannot be faulted on the ground that there is violation of principal of natural justice.