Bombay High Court
Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its ... vs The Presiding Officer, School ... on 6 June, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2897.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2897 OF 2012
1) Bhadrawati Shikshan Sanstha,
At & Post Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur (Through its
Secretary).
2) Yashwantrao Shinde Vidyalaya Chichordi,
Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur
(Through its Headmaster) .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1) The Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur.
2) The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
3) Rakesh s/o Rajesh Giradkar,
Aged about 35 years,
C/o Sanjay Kirana Stores, New
Sumthana, Tq. Bhadrawati, District
Chandrapur.
4) Ku. S.F. Saed,
Assistant Teacher,
Yashwantrao Shinde Vidyalaya, Chichordi,
Tahsil Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::
2 wp2897.12
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners,
Shri K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the respondent No.2,
Shri S.G. Malode, Advocate for the respondent No.3
None for the respondent No.4.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 6
JUNE, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners/ employer, Shri K.R. Lule, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2-Education Officer and Shri S.G. Malode, Advocate for the respondent No.3/employee.
The respondent No.1-Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Chandrapur is formal party.
None appears for the respondent No.4.
2. The judgment which I propose to pass will not prejudice the respondent No.4 and therefore, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The respondent No.3 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school administered by the petitioner No.1-Society, by the order ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 ::: 3 wp2897.12 dated 23-08-1999. The respondent No.3 joined the service on 24-08-1999. The respondent No.3 filed appeal before the Tribunal on 19-01-2000 contending that he was not permitted to sign the muster roll with effect from 17-01-2000 and it amounted to otherwise termination.
The employer opposed the claim of the respondent No.3.
According to the employer, the services of respondent No.3 are terminated on 27-01-2000. According to the employer, the work of respondent No.3 was not satisfactory and therefore, his services were terminated. The School Tribunal considered the pleadings and documents placed on the record and by the impugned order concluded that the termination of services of the respondent No.3 is illegal. The Tribunal directed the employer to reinstate the respondent No.3 with continuity of service and to pay the arrears of salary from 17-01-2000.
The employer being aggrieved by the above order, has filed this writ petition.
4. The learned Advocate for the employer has submitted that the work of the respondent No.3 was not satisfactory and therefore, the employer was well within its right to remove the respondent No.3 who was a probationer.
::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::4 wp2897.12 It is undisputed that the respondent No.3 is working as Subject Resources Person with the office of Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli from 06-01-2007.
5. The employer has placed on record the copy of termination notice dated 27-01-2000 and copy of complaint alleged to have been made by female employees working in the school, on 15-02-2000 to support the contention that the removal of the respondent No.3 is proper. The employer has not been able to show that show cause notice was given to the respondent No.3 before 27-01- 2000 i.e. before issuing the termination notice. It being undisputed that the respondent No.3 was appointed on probation, in normal course it was necessary for the employer to continue the respondent No.3 as probationer for the entire period of probation and if the employer felt that the continuation of the respondent No.3 in the school for the entire period of probation was not in the interests of the institution, the employer should have given show cause notice and conducted an enquiry before removing the respondent No.3 by curtailing the probation period. As the employer has not taken steps according to law, the decision of the employer to terminate the services of the respondent No.3 is illegal. The Tribunal has rightly quashed the ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 ::: 5 wp2897.12 decision of the employer to terminate the services of the respondent No.3.
6. The issue which is required to be adverted to at this stage is whether the directions given by the Tribunal to the employer to reinstate the respondent No.3 in service and to pay the arrears of salary, are proper. Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of Bharatiya Gramin Punarrachana Sanstha vs. Vijay Kumar and others reported on 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 563 and the fact that the respondent No.3 is employed since 06-01-2007, the interests of justice would be sub-served by passing the following order :
i) The decision of the employer to terminate the services of the respondent No.3 is quashed.
ii) The directions given by the Tribunal to the employer to reinstate the respondent No.3 with continuity of service and to pay the entire back wages are set aside and in lieu of it the employer is directed to pay the arrears of salary (basic + emoluments) of the respondent No.3 for the period from 17-01-2000 till 22-08-2001, that is date on which the respondent No.3 would have completed the ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 ::: 6 wp2897.12 probation period. The amount shall be paid by the employer to the respondent No.3 within two months. If the amount is not paid within two months, the employer shall pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the above amount to the respondent No.3 from the date of this judgment till the amount is paid to the respondent No.3.
iii) The order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent.
iv) The petition is partly allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE pma ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:27:17 :::