Pimpri Chinchwad Education Trust And Anr vs Tukaram Keraba Shinde And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010001222011

WP 402-11 C3.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 402 OF 2011
1. Pimpri Chinchwad Education Trust
Having its office at Sector No. 28
Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune – 411 044
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN
2. The Principal, Pimpri Chinchwad
Polytechnic, Nigdi, Pune – 411 044. ...Petitioners
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.10.22
18:07:05 +0530
Versus
1. Tukaram Keraba Shinde
Age adult, Residing at Navshanti Niketan
Housing Society, Sector 29, Plot No. 39, Near
D.Y. Patil College, Akrudi Pradhikaran,
Pune – 411044
2. The Joint Director, Directorate of Technical
Education, 412 E, Ghole Road, Pune – 411 018
3. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents

Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.G. Kudle a/w Mr. K.D. Jadhav for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yuvraj D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3/State.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
st
DATE : 21 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner No.1 is an Educational Institute and Petitioner
No.2 is a Polytechnic College run by it. Petitioners are challenging
judgment and order dated 22.10.2010 passed by Presiding Officer,
School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No. 26 of 2009. By the
Sneha Chavan 1
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
said impugned order, Appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 is partly
allowed, thereby setting aside decision of the Petitioner-Management
dated 31.01.2009 and findings of the inquiry committee and further
directing the Petitioner-Management to reinstate the Respondent No. 1
in service for the purpose of inquiry and to conduct fresh inquiry against
Respondent No. 1 from the stage of recording evidence by following
applicable Rules. The Petitioner-Management is further directed to pay
full salary to Respondent No. 1 from 05.08.2007 and continue to pay
the same till completion of inquiry as per Rules.
2. The Respondent No. 1 filed the said appeal under Section 9 of
the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 (for short ‘ MEPS Act’ and ‘MEPS
Rules’) before Tribunal contending inter alia as under.
2.1 That he possessed educational qualification as B.E. Civil (M.E.
Civil appearing). That in response to an advertisement published in
1990, he applied for the post of lecturer. That he was called for an
interview and came to be selected on the post of Lecturer in Applied
Mechanics. That appointment order dated 14.01.1991 was issued. That
thereafter, the Management has issued 2 more appointment orders.
That on completion of 2 years probation, he was deemed permanent
employee. That his work and performance was satisfactory, and no
memo or warning was issued to him.
2.2 That he and his colleagues were deprived of the financial benefits
and therefore, request/demand was made in writing from time to time.
That after completion of 6 years, he was entitled for up-gradation in
Pay-Scale. However, despite repeated requests, the Management
deprived him of the benefits. That this resulted into Respondent No. 1
making correspondence with the Management since August 1998.
Sneha Chavan 2
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
2.3 That in December 2004, he was appointed as in-charge Head of
the Department of Civil Engineering. However, instead of paying as per
prescribed rate, he was paid fixed amount. That in October 2005, the
Management informed the Respondent No. 1 that he is placed in the
scale of senior lecturer with effect from 01.09.2005. That on
01.06.2006, charge of this post as Head of the Department was
suddenly withdrawn and one Mr. P. P. Jadhav was given the said
responsibility.
2.4 That thereafter, he made representation for giving benefits of
selection grade because he had completed 15 years of service. That
thereafter, he pursued the matter with education authorities and in
December 2006, the Joint Director of Technical Education had written
to the Management asking for necessary action.
2.5 That vide Order dated 05.04.2007, the Respondent No. 1 was
placed under suspension for alleged misconduct.
2.6 That on 19.11.2007, letter of allegation was issued by
Management. That only 7 days time was given when certain documents
were required. That vide letter dated 01.01.2008, he was informed
names of two members of the inquiry committee calling upon him to
nominate his representative. On 14.01.2008, he communicated name of
his nominee Mr. H.V. Chavan.
2.7 On 21.01.2008, charge sheet was issued, including 10 charges.
On 20.02.2008, Respondent No. 1 submitted his explanation, denying
all charges.
2.8 That the proceedings of the inquiry were completed in hasty
manner. That on 15.01.2009, Respondent No. 1 submitted written
arguments. That on 27.01.2009, two members of the inquiry committee
including convener and award-winning teacher submitted their reports.
On 29.01.2009, nominee of Respondent No. 1 submitted his separate
Sneha Chavan 3
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
reports.
2.9 On 31.01.2009, termination letter was issued which was received
by Respondent No. 1 by registered post. Therefore, appeal is filed.
3. The Petitioner- Management filed a reply denying allegations
made against it. It is denied that Respondent No. 1 was appointed in
clear and permanent vacancy. Satisfactory performance was denied.
Alleged deprivation of legal entitlement were denied. It is contended
that the Respondent No. 1 did not file any documents in support of his
contentions. The Management denied violation of provisions of law or
principles of natural justice. It is contended that the allegations are false
and baseless. The Management contended that documentary evidence
was produced before the enquiry committee in support of the charges. It
was contended that memos were issued to Respondent No. 1. However,
the Respondent No.1 admitted his faults by replying to the memos and
gave assurances. It is contended that the Respondent No. 1 continued
his misconduct, negligence of duty, and intentional negligence, and did
not improve behavior and the Management was constrained to initiate
enquiry. It was further contended that Respondent No. 1 did not
examine any witnesses. It is contended that sufficient opportunity was
given to Respondent No. 1. That on many occasions Respondent No. 1
threatened the witnesses of Management and used unparliamentary
language against them. That during inquiry committee meetings
Respondent No. 1 never respected the committee. That minutes of the
meetings were duly supplied to Respondent No. 1 which are signed by
the Respondent No. 1 except when he was absent. That no objection
was raised during enquiry. That Respondent No. 1 has taken lengthy
cross examination of witness Mr. P. P. Jadhav. That Respondent No. 1
was paid subsistence allowance @ of 75% and the enquiry was
Sneha Chavan 4
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
prolonged because of the conduct of Respondent No. 1. That the
allegation of victimization is denied. That since the State Awardee
teacher, Mr. M. N. Kondhwekar resigned in between, another State
Awardee teacher, Mrs. Kulkarni, was required to be appointed. That as
many as 38 sittings took place during the enquiry and full opportunity
was given to Respondent No. 1 to defend himself. That 2 members of
the inquiry committee have given findings recommending major
punishment following which the Management has issued order of
termination.
4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and on appreciation of
evidence held that the inquiry committee was constituted in accordance
with provisions of the MEPS Act and said Rules. However, holding that
inquiry was not conducted as per MEPS Rules, the appeal is allowed.
5. In these circumstances, Petitioners have challenged the
impugned order. The petition is admitted on 15.04.2011 and the
operation and execution of the impugned order has been stayed for last
more than 15 years.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Learned counsel Mr. Sadavarte, appearing for the Petitioner-
Management submitted as under. That complaints were received against
the Respondent No. 1 and by following due procedure under the MEPS
Act and MEPS Rules, the Respondent No. 1 was put under suspension
and inquiry committee was constituted. That chargesheet and statement
of allegations were served upon Respondent No. 1. That as many as 38
sittings took place by the inquiry committee where the witness of the
Management has been cross-examined by the Respondent No. 1. That
Sneha Chavan 5
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
the Respondent No. 1 has filed written submissions and after giving full
opportunity to Respondent No. 1, the inquiry committee has submitted
its report finding him guilty of all charges except charge No. 10. That
the inquiry committee, by majority recommended major penalty, which
has been acted upon by the Management. That only on the ground that
further explanation was not sought from the Respondent No. 1 by
serving summary of proceedings, the inquiry has been held as vitiated.
That detail reply was given by the Petitioner-Management and it was
specifically contended that Respondent No. 1 has not submitted any
explanation to the statement of allegations though one month time was
given instead of 7 days. That there is substantive compliance with the
Rules and therefore the alleged non-compliance is not sufficient to
vitiate entire inquiry. He finally submitted that there is no real prejudice
shown by the Respondent No. 1 and Tribunal was not justified in
interfering. He relied on following judgments in support of his case.
(i) State Bank of Patiala v/s. S. K. Sharma. (1996) 3 SCC 364.
(ii) State Bank of India v/s. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors. (2011)
2 SCC 316.
(iii) Surabhi Keshav Sahu V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Writ Petition (L) No. 29423 of 2022 Judgment pronounced
on 28.03.2025, Division Bench of Bombay High Court).
7. On the other hand, Mr. Kudle, learned counsel for Respondent
No. 1 submitted as under. That the Tribunal has clearly held that
procedure was not followed. Therefore, opportunity was given to the
Petitioner-Management. That if Rules were followed, he was always
ready to face inquiry. He submitted that the opportunity given to the
Management under impugned order is not taken and instead of
conducting fresh inquiry, the Petitioner has chosen to file this petition
Sneha Chavan 6
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
and obtain stay to harass Respondent No. 1. That the Petitioner has
already reached the age of superannuation at the end of March 2023
and therefore, there is no question of reinstatement, but he is entitled to
back wages and continuity in service. He finally submitted that the
Tribunal has seen the injustice caused to the Respondent No. 1 and has
passed reasoned order and there is no reason to interfere.
8. Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the Petitioner in rejoinder
submitted that the Tribunal has also considered the merits of charges
leveled against Respondent No. 1 in paragraph No. 47 onwards in the
impugned order and therefore it is not necessary to conduct inquiry
again.
9. Learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State, relying on
affidavit in reply dated 06.04.2011, has submitted that the State cannot
be burdened with any liability to pay as the Petitioner-Management has
been recognized on permanent non-grant basis under Government
Resolution dated 21.05.1983. He submitted that this is a dispute purely
between Management and employee about the charges leveled against
Respondent No. 1 and the Management alone is responsible for liability,
if any.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
10. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. First of all, it is necessary to consider the settled law in respect
of conduct of inquiry in case of a delinquent employee.
11. Useful reference can be made to paragraph No. 33 (3) of In
State Bank of Patiala v/s. S. K. Sharma (Supra) , where it is held by the
Sneha Chavan 7
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the case of alleged violation of the
procedural requirements, the procedural provisions are generally meant
for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent
and violation of each and every procedural provision cannot be said to
automatically vitiate the inquiry held or order passed. It is further held
that except cases falling under ‘no notice, no opportunity and no
hearing’ categories, the complaint of violation of procedure should be
examined from the point of view of prejudice namely whether such
violation has prejudiced the delinquent in defending himself properly
and effectively. It is further held that if it is found that the delinquent
has been so prejudiced, then appropriate order to repair and remedy the
prejudice can be passed. However, it is held that if no prejudice is
established to have resulted to the delinquent, no interference is
required.
12. In SBI V/s Bidyut Kumar (Supra), the aforesaid law has been
reiterated in paragraph No. 37 of the said Judgment. It is held that
pleading and proof is necessary to show prejudice.
13. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in Surabhi Keshav
Sahu (Supra) has considered State Bank of Patiala V/s S. K. Sharma
(Supra) and re-iterated the test to be applied - “all things taken together
whether the delinquent had or did not have a fair hearing?”. This is
required to be seen.
14. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is necessary
to examine the facts of this case. So far as opportunity to Respondent
No. 1 is concerned, following facts emerge from record :
14.1. The Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 38 & 39 has clearly held that
Sneha Chavan 8
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
Respondent No. 1 has not brought on record any prejudice caused to
him and the Committee is constituted as per the said Rules.
14.2. Respondent No. 1 did not submit his explanation to the letter
informing allegations. It is not in dispute that the inquiry committee
included Mr H.V. Chavan, who was nominated by Respondent No. 1/
delinquent. It is also clearly observed that Respondent No. 1 never
raised in objection either to the appointment of Mr. Kondhwekar or Mrs
Kulkarni, who both were award winning teacher.
14.3. In paragraph no. 44 of the impugned order, it is explained in
detail as to how Respondent No. 1 has cross-examined the witness of
the Management and despite directions by the committee, how
Respondent No. 1 has not examined any witness or has not filed any
evidence affidavit.
14.4. It has also come on record that Respondent No. 1 has failed to
give written explanation after service of statement of allegations.
14.5. It has also come on record that the inquiry committee asked
Respondent No. 1 many times to appoint advocate, if he desires, but he
has chosen to appear himself.
14.6. The Tribunal has also held that the arguments of Respondent No.
1 such as predetermined intention of the management and bias are not
proved by him.
14.7. As many as 38 sittings of inquiry committee were held. Though
an argument was made that written submissions of Respondent No. 1
are not considered, the Tribunal has clearly found that no such written
submission was filed.
14.8. In paragraph No. 61, it is held that more than sufficient
opportunity was given to Respondent No.1 to cross examine the witness
of the management and that many dates were given for cross
examination.
Sneha Chavan 9
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
15. However, in paragraph No. 44, the Tribunal has concluded
that the inquiry committee did not give opportunity to Respondent No.
1 to submit his ‘further-explanation’ about summary of proceedings as
required under Rule 37(5) of the MEPS Rules and further explanation
ought to have been sought by serving summary of proceedings either
personally or by registered post AD. This is apparently the only reason
why the Tribunal has held the entire inquiry as being vitiated. The
Tribunal, in paragraph No. 58, has held that since the inquiry has been
found to be in breach of Rules 37 (4) & (5), it is not discussing and
deciding on merits about the inquiry committee findings. The Tribunal
has surprisingly held that the inquiry committee ought to have recorded
oral-evidence and should not have accepted affidavit of examination-in-
chief and therefore proper procedure is not followed.
16. From aforesaid factual aspects, it is clear that Respondent
No.1 had sufficient opportunity to defend his case. He has chosen not to
give explanation to statement of allegations. He has chosen not to
examine any witness. He was given sufficient opportunity to cross
examine. Therefore, it is clear that there was no real prejudice to the
Respondent No.1 and all things taken together, Respondent No.1 had
sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Therefore, it is not possible to
sustain the impugned order by which the findings of the inquiry
committee as well as consequent termination have been set aside. The
Tribunal was not justified to hold the entire inquiry as vitiated, in the
circumstances narrated above.
17. The Tribunal has not considered the finding of the inquiry
committee on merits. Considering that the petition has remained
pending for a long time and the impugned order was stayed, I do not
Sneha Chavan 10
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
find it appropriate to relegate the parties back to the Tribunal for any
purpose. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the charges.
18. Charge No.1 is about negligently sealing mark sheet in
M.S.B.T.E practical examination. Charge No. 2 is in respect of
negligently checking, certifying and approving results of experiments in
the laboratory manual. Charge No. 3 is about negligently leaving the
institute early without informing to superiors despite being member of
internal squad of supervisors during examination. Charge No.4 is also
about leaving the institute early without permission of the superiors.
Charge No. 5 is about persistently and deliberately failing to take
lectures as per timetable. Charge No. 6 is in respect of refusing to sign,
accept and acknowledge notices sent by Head of the department and
superiors. Charge No. 7 is about taking various leaves arbitrarily and
without seeking prior permission. Charge No. 8 is about neglecting to
follow instructions and orders issued by head of the department and
behaving in a rude and arrogant manner. Charge No. 9 is about not
remaining present before the Internal Investigating Committee and
challenging the authority of the Principal resulting in serious
misconduct and insubordination. Charge No. 10 is about using
unparliamentary language with staff and colleagues and speaking
unspeakable badwords and raising chappal on non-teaching staff.
19. Charge No. 10 has not been found to be proved by the inquiry
committee.
20. Considering the nature of remaining charges, as explained
above, in my view, the punishment of termination appears to be
disproportionate. Even reduction in rank would have been sufficient.
Sneha Chavan 11
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
Now, due to lapse of time, Respondent No.1 has reached the age of
superannuation some time in the year 2023. The impugned order has
been stayed for last about 15 years. There is nothing on record to
establish conclusively whether Respondent No.1 was or was not
gainfully employed in the meantime. There is word against word. Also,
it is difficult to believe that Respondent No.1 did not do anything for
such a long period of time. However, the Court cannot lose sight of the
fact that at the time of termination, Respondent No.1 had served for 18
years (from 1991 to 2009) which is long period of time and about 14
more years were left before retirement. There is no serious dispute
about legality of his appointment. Apparently, the inquiry was initiated
after Respondent No.1 started corresponding with the Management
demanding dues.
21. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter and considering
above circumstances, in my view Respondent No.1 deserves a lump sum
compensation.
22. Hence, the petition succeeds only in part. Writ Petition is
disposed of by passing following order :
(A) The impugned order dated 22.10.2010 is quashed and set aside.
The findings of the enquiry committee are confirmed.
(B) However, the punishment of termination is found to be
disproportionate.
(C) The Petitioner-Management is directed to pay an amount of Rs.
16 Lakh as a lump sum compensation to Respondent No.1 within a
period of 6 weeks from today, failing which the said amount shall carry
interest @ 9% per annum from the date after 6 weeks from today till
realization.
Sneha Chavan 12
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38

WP 402-11 C3.doc
23. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms with no order as
to costs.
24. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks stay of
this order for a period of 8 weeks. Considering that 6 weeks time is
granted for making payment and the interest is chargeable thereafter,
separate stay is not necessary. Hence request is rejected.
25. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 13
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:10:38
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)