Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 147
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.1558-1559/2026
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.27266-67/2024]
Hemlata Eknath Pise Appellant
VERSUS
Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha
Waddhamna & Ors. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
th
Nagpur by the impugned judgment and order dated 05 September,
1
2024 allowed a writ petition filed by the first respondent. A remand
2
was ordered to the School Tribunal, Nagpur to consider afresh the
claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service upon quashing of
the final order of dismissal from service.
th
3. Incidentally, the Tribunal vide its order dated 8 August, 2019
had set aside an order of the first respondent dismissing the
appellant from service and granted reinstatement together with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.02.12
17:07:51 IST
Reason:
consequential benefits to her.
1
Writ Petition No.5899 of 2019
2
Tribunal
1
th
4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 05 September, 2024
reveals that the High Court considered a solitary point raised on
behalf of the first respondent, i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into
all the records and proceedings more particularly the resolution
authorizing the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings against the
appellant, and upon recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needs
to revisit the matter and without looking into any other point,
expressed the view that a remand was indeed called for. It was
accordingly ordered, while quashing the Tribunal’s aforesaid order
th
dated 8 August, 2019.
5. Crestfallen, the appellant applied for a review of the order
th 3
dated 05 September, 2024 , contending that the disciplinary
proceedings that were initiated had been conducted in gross breach
of the principles of natural justice. She highlighted not being allowed
to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the High
Court’s attention was sought to be drawn to the factual position that
cross examination of the main witness of the management was in
st
progress on 31 July, 2017, and it was deferred till the next date
st
when it was supposed to resume; however, on 1 August, 2017, the
inquiry officer abruptly closed the proceedings without granting
opportunity to the appellant to complete cross-examination of the
said witness as well as the other witnesses. She also sought to
contend that the Tribunal had found the charges not to have been
3
MRA No. 838/2024
2
proved. By applying for review, she urged the High Court to consider
the aforesaid points.
6. The review petition, however, did not find favour with the High
th
Court which, by its order dated 25 September, 2024, rejected the
same.
th
7. The order dated 05 September, 2024 allowing the writ
th
petition and the order dated 25 September, 2024 dismissing the
review petition are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
8. In our considered view, having regard to the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the High Court ought not to have remanded the
matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration
of only the sole point noticed above. Even if the Secretary of the first
respondent were authorized to draw up proceedings against the
appellant by issuing charge-sheet, whether or not the inquiry
suffered from breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and
also as to whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified, ought
to have engaged the High Court’s due consideration.
9. Law is pretty well-settled that when several issues arise for
being answered by a Court in the facts of a given case, ideally,
disposal thereof ought to be preceded by recording the Court’s
answers to each of such issues with reasons rather than the decision
of the Court focusing on just one decisive point. This approach, apart
from ensuring that all issues are considered providing clarity and
assuring some sort of a finality, would respect the rights of the
3
litigants to a comprehensive decision; also, if an appeal were carried
from such decision, the appellate court would be benefitted by a
reasoned decision of the original court.
10. The High Court, thus, appears to have faltered in deciding only
one single point while not dealing with the others, which is a
th
fundamental flaw vitiating its order dated 5 September, 2024.
Accordingly, we set aside the orders impugned in these appeals and
order a remand of the writ petition to the High Court for a fresh
consideration thereof in the light of the claims and defences of the
parties.
11. Since the appellant has reached the age of superannuation and
there is, thus, no question of her reinstatement in service, inter alia ,
the primary questions that would necessarily arise for decision
before the High Court are whether: (i) the Tribunal was justified in
interfering with the disciplinary action taken by the first respondent
against the appellant and (ii) the appellant would be entitled to back
wages as well as retiral benefits, should the first question be decided
against the first respondent.
12. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to
assign the writ petition to the roster Bench for its consideration and
disposal in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably
within a period of four months of such assignment.
13. All questions on fact and law are kept open for the parties to
urge before the High Court.
4
14. We also leave it open to the parties to explore a mediated
settlement notwithstanding that no such settlement in that behalf
could be reached before us.
15. The appeals stand allowed on the aforesaid terms.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………..………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
………………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 11, 2026.
5
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.27266-27267/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-09-2024
in WP No. 5899/2019 and 25-09-2024 in MRA No. 838/2024 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]
HEMLATA EKNATH PISE Appellant
VERSUS
SHUBHAM BAHU UDDESHIYA SANSTHA, WADDHAMNA & ORS. Respondents
FOR ADMISSION
I.A. No.263836/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 11-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR
Mr. B Lakshmi Pallesh, Adv.
Ms. Akshda, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Manoj Ramkrushna Shete, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.
Mr. Parth Johri, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Madhur Duggal, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv.
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
Mr. Narendar Rao Taneer, Adv.
Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.
Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR
Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
6
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
7