LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-337

GRAMIN UDDHAR SOCIETY Vs. GOPAL DAMDUJI SHELWATKAR

Decided On April 07, 2008
Gramin Uddhar Society Appellant
V/S
Gopal Damduji Shelwatkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Management takes exception to the judgment of a learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No.985 of 1988 filed by the respondent-Head Master, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 26-3-1987 terminating the services of the respondent, as also the judgment dated 27-8-1987 passed by the School Tribunal dismissing the respondent's appeal.

(2.) The respondent was serving as Head Master of the School run by the appellant-Society, after having initially served in the said School as Assistant Teacher. On 1-7-1986, the President of the appellant-Society served upon the respondent a statement of allegations. Another statement of allegations was served on 23-8-1986 by the Secretary of the Society. The President had nominated the Secretary of the Society as the convener of the Enquiry Committee, in addition to three members contemplated under Rule 36(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. The Enquiry Committee held the respondent guilty and the services of the respondent came to be terminated by order dated 26-3-1987. The respondent challenged the same before the School Tribunal by preferring Appeal No.STN/30 of 1987, which was dismissed by the School Tribunal by its judgment dated 27-8-1987. The respondent preferred a review, which too was rejected by the School Tribunal by its order dated 30-3-1988.

(3.) While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that sub-rule (2)(b) of Rule 36 of the MEPS Rules, dealing with the composition of Enquiry Committee for holding enquiry against the Head Master, does not contemplate having anyone else except the President of the Society as the convener of the Enquiry Committee. The Committee, which enquired into the conduct of the respondent was, therefore, rightly held to have been constituted improperly. Thus the finding given by the Enquiry Committee was, in the view of the learned Single Judge, liable to be quashed and set aside.