LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-42

SUDARSHANI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER ADDITIONAL SCHOOL TRIBUNAL NAGPUR

Decided On April 03, 2009
SUDARSHANI Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL SCHOOL TRIBUNAL NAGPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was, admittedly, working as Head Mistress of Savitribai Fule Vidyalaya, at Masod, dist. Wardha. The School is run by respondent No. 2-Savitribai Fule, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. An enquiry was initiated by the Management against the present petitioner and in all twenty two charges were levelled against her. Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of representative of Management, representative of delinquent Head Mistress and a State Awardee Head Master. After enquiry, report was submitted by said Committee. As per that report, representative of the Management on the enquiry committee held that out of twenty two charges, one charge was not proved while twenty one charges were proved. As per finding of the State Awardee Head Master, out of twenty two charges, only nine charges were proved while according to representative of the delinquent employee, no charge was proved. On the point of punishment also members of the enquiry committee could not come to any unanimous decision while representative of the Management recommended that major penalty should be imposed, the State Awardee Head Master recommended that minor penalty should be imposed and consistent to his own finding, representative of the delinquent employee came to the conclusion that no penalty should be imposed. As such, majority of enquiry committee members had agreed that nine charges were proved. As the enquiry Committee could not prescribe any punishment unanimously, report was submitted to the Management and after looking into the report, the Management passed an order, reducing the petitioner's rank i.e. from the post of Head Mistress to the post of Assistant Teacher. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STN 26/1999. After hearing the parties, the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal by impugned judgment dated 31-10-2000. That order is challenged in the present petition.

(2.) Section 4(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (For short the "Act") provides that no employee of the private school shall be suspended, dismissed or removed or his services shall not be otherwise terminated or he shall not be reduced in rank by the Management except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules made in that behalf. The penalties are classified as minor penalties and major penalties in Rule 31 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (For short the "Rules"). Minor penalties are; (i) reprimand (ii) warning (iii) censure (iv) withholding of an increment for a period not exceeding one year (v) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Institution by negligence or breach of orders. The major penalties are (i) reduction in rank (ii) termination of service.

(3.) For inflicting the major penalties, the procedure is laid down under Rules 33 to 37 of the Rules. Rule 37(6) provides that after obtaining explanation of delinquent employee and after completion of enquiry, the enquiry committee shall communicate its findings on the charges against the employee and its decision on the basis of those findings to the Management for specific action to be taken against the employee or the Head as the case may be. It also provides that the decision of the enquiry committee shall be implemented by the Management by issuing necessary orders within seven days from the date of receipt of decision of the enquiry committee. From this, it is clear that the decision about the penalty, on the basis of the findings, has to be taken by the enquiry committee itself and that decision has to be communicated to Management. The Management has to implement that decision. The Act and the Rules do not give powers to the Management to take decision as to what punishment or penalty should be imposed on the basis of finding of the enquiry committee.