Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bhavika Vidyaprasarak Mandal vs Rekha Hemant Khairnar . on 12 February, 2014
¨(
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1049 AND 1053 OF 2012
Bhavika Vidyaprasarak Mandal and others ..Appellants
versus
Rekha Hemant Khairnar and others ..Respondents
O R D E R
Writ Petition No.8861 of 2007 (and other connected writ petitions) were allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the ’High Court’) on 8.4.2008 with the direction that the respondents herein, who were the petitioners therein, be reinstated into service. The respondents were also held to be entitled to full back wages, after the orders of their dismissal from service were set aside.
The appellants before this Court assailed the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, (in all the writ petitions), by preferring Letters Patent Appeal No.403 of 2008 (and other connected Letters Patent Appeals).
While adjudicating upon the controversy in the Letters Patent Appeals, it was, inter alia, observed as under:
"14. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is one other facet which vitiates the inquiry proceedings i.e. there is breach of Rule 36(5). Sub-rule (5) of Rule 36 deals with the role of the convener of the inquiry committee. On plain reading of sub-rule (5) of Rule 36, it is clear that the convener cannot participate in the inquiry proceedings as member of the inquiry committee and his role is to assist the committee by playing a secretarial role. This is further clear from sub- rules (4), (5) and (6) of Rule 37. In the present case, it is seen that convener presided over the inquiry and has participated in the inquiry proceedings as a member and the convener has also signed the report of the inquiry committee. Thus, there is clear contravention of mandatory requirement of Rule 37(3) to (6) of the MEPS Rules. The Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal and Anr. vs. Education Officer and Anr. CJT 2007(3) SC 2730, held that the provisions of Rule 37(6) are mandatory. In the present case, the mandatory requirements of sub-rule (6) of Rule 37 have not been complied with. In fact, the School Tribunal in its order, held that inquiry report was in violation of Rule 37(6) of the MEPS Rules, but, however, for the reasons discussed above, the School Tribunal did not think it fit to remit the matter back to the management to conduct a fresh inquiry."
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any infirmity in the determination rendered in the Letters Patent Appeals, as has been extracted hereinabove.
Accordingly, we find no cause to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The instant appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
.......................J.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
NEW DELHI; ......................J.
FEBRUARY 12, 2014. [MADAN B. LOKUR]
ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.13 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1049 AND 1053 OF 2012 BHAVIKA VIDYAPRASARAK MANDAL & ORS. Appellant (s) VERSUS REKHA HEMANT KHAIRNAR & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay and office report )) Date: 12/02/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR For Appellant(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Adv.
Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, Adv.
for Ms. Abha R. Sharma,AOR For Respondent(s) None UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal Nos. 1049 and 1053 are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
|(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) |
|Court Master | |Assistant Registrar |
| | | |
[signed order is placed on the file]