Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal (a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860) and its Shri Bhagubai Mafatlal Polytechnic; Respondent: Arun Raghunath Kadam, employed as Junior Clerk/Assistant Teacher at the Polytechnic.
  • Allegations: Respondent allegedly collected Rs 51,000 from two scrap dealers (Rs 31,000 from Nasim Khan and Rs 20,000 from Irshad Ali) by promising sale of motor machines from the Electrical Department and issued false receipts (Receipt No. 279 dated 12 Aug 2011 and Receipt No. 40069 dated 1 Oct 2012).
  • Disciplinary timeline:
  • 8 Mar 1990 – appointed as Hamal/Sweeper (probation); 29 Mar 1990 – confirmed.
  • 4 Jan 2007 – promoted to Junior Clerk.
  • 2 Nov 2012 – show‑cause notice issued.
  • 16 Jan 2013 – charge‑sheet issued; reply on 25 Feb 2013.
  • Enquiry committee initially not constituted; proceedings treated as non‑est.
  • 19 Dec 2013 – fresh statement of allegations; 7 May 2014 – fresh charge‑sheet issued.
  • 7 Mar 2014 – suspension placed, revoked on 15 Mar 2014.
  • 12 Sep 2014 – enquiry committee constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.
  • Committee members: Harit S. Chitale, Imtiaz Ul Haq, Juee A. Hadkar (later reconstituted after objection).
  • 26 Feb 2015 – two members (Chitale, Hadkar) found respondent guilty and recommended termination; third member (Ul Haq) found him not guilty.
  • Reports forwarded to management on 15 Apr 2015; management accepted majority view and terminated service on 23 Apr 2015.
  • Appeal: Respondent filed Appeal No. 20 of 2016 before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. Petitioners opposed the appeal on 26 Oct 2016.
  • School Tribunal judgment (27 Apr 2018): held the enquiry was not in accordance with the MEPS Act and Rules, quashed termination, ordered reinstatement and 75 % back wages from 24 Apr 2013.
  • Writ petition: filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Tribunal’s judgment.
  • Arguments:
  • Petitioners (via Senior Advocate Girish Godbole) argued procedural irregularities (Rule 37‑B) did not prejudice respondent; relied on State Bank of Patiala case; emphasized admission letters and receipts.
  • Respondent (via Advocate Pramod Kathane) contended multiple enquiries caused delay and prejudice; highlighted that the enquiry committee’s reports were separate, not a combined mandatory report, and that evidence (receipts, witness statements) was unreliable.
  • Court’s legal analysis:
  • Examined mandatory nature of Rule 37(6) requiring a combined report from the enquiry committee; cited Vidya Vikas Mandal (2007) that separate reports violate the rule.
  • Discussed distinction between substantive and procedural violations (State Bank of Patiala) and the need to assess prejudice.
  • Noted delays in forwarding reports, lack of summary to employee, and absence of a seven‑day opportunity to reply before report submission.
  • Found that the procedural defects were not harmless; the majority‑member reports could not substitute for a compliant combined report.
  • Evaluated evidence: receipts not matched with receipt book, witness lacked personal knowledge, letter (Exhibit 20) was handwritten by respondent but its voluntariness was disputed; no police complaint was filed.
  • Concluded that the Tribunal’s reliance on the majority reports was improper and that the back‑wage direction was unsupported.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is partly allowed.
  • The finding that the enquiry did not comply with Rule 37 is upheld.
  • Termination order dated 23 Apr 2015 is set aside.
  • Directions for reinstatement with continuity of service and 75 % back wages are set aside.
  • Respondent is reinstated as Assistant Teacher solely to enable a fresh disciplinary enquiry.
  • Management must constitute a fresh Inquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(a) and complete the enquiry in accordance with Rule 37 within six months of its constitution.
  • The fresh committee must consider the charges independently, give the respondent a reasonable defence opportunity, and submit a combined report.
  • Consequential service benefits and back wages will be determined based on the outcome of the fresh enquiry.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Legal Procedure; Employment Dispute