Ambegaon Taluka Vidya Vikas Mandal And Anr. vs Husen Kasam Shaikh And Ors.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010116222005
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
Date:
2026.10.23
20:03:05
+0530
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 2115 OF 2005
1. Ambegaon Taluka Vidya Vikas Mandal, ]
Ghodegoan, Tal. Ambegaon, Dist. Pune. ]
2. The Principal, ]
Shri. Muktai Prashala Pimpalgaon, ]
Tal. Ghodegaon, Dist. Pune. ] … Petitioners
Versus
1. Mr. Husen Kasam Shaikh ]
Age: About 29 yrs. Occu: At present Nil ]
R/at: Post Pimpalgaon (Ghode), ]
Tal. Ambegaon, Dist. Pune. ]
2. The Education Officer, ]
Secondary Section, Zilla Parishad, Pune. ]
3. The State of Maharashtra ] … Respondents
*
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Samir Suryawanshi for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Kumud Bhatia for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for
Respondent Nos.2 & 3/State.
*
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 19 JUNE, 2026
rd
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. By this petition Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the
Petitioners (Management and School) are challenging Judgment and
Husen 1
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
Order dated 03.02.2005 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal,
Pune Region, Pune in Appeal No.80 of 2001. By the said impugned
order, the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 is allowed thereby setting
aside dismissal of Respondent No.1 under order dated 20.10.2001,
holding Respondent No.1 entitled to reinstatement in service as Peon
from the date of dismissal with full back-wages and consequential
benefits. The State Government is recommended to deduct the back-
wages from grant payable to the Petitioner/Management and paid to
Respondent No. 1.
BACKGROUND
2. Respondent No. 1 is an arts graduate. He was initially
appointed as Junior Clerk w.e.f. 09.10.1995 to 31.03.1996 in the
leave vacancy. He then came to be appointed as Peon w.e.f.
26.09.1997. He was transferred by order dated 30.01.1999. His
request for posting back to earlier school was not considered.
3. According to Respondent No. 1, the President of the
Petitioner/Management Mr. D. K. Kale was having grudge against him
and it resulted into his harassment. He contended that sometime in
April 2000, he suffered right-hip joint fracture and was required to
take leave, but the President of the Management and Headmaster of
the School refused to grant him leave and he was compelled to take
leave without pay. He contended that in September 2000,
applications were received by the Management from villagers,
making allegations that he was having illicit relation with one lady-
teacher working in the school and action was sought against him. He
contended that explanation was sought, which was submitted by him.
Husen 2
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
He contended that anticipating trouble, he decided to go on hunger
strike to protest against harassment. He also issued legal notice to the
Management which was replied.
4. According to the Management, instead of giving explanation
sought, the Respondent No. 1 gave reply making allegations against
the President and sent its copies all over the State, thereby bringing
disrepute to the School and this amounted to misconduct. Hence, the
Petitioner/Management decided to hold inquiry against Respondent
No. 1. Charge-sheet was issued along with letter dated 12.03.2001.
Sum and substance of charges is that acts of Respondent No. 1 were
damaging the reputation of the Management and School amounting
to misconduct.
5. Respondent No. 1 appointed his nominee. Inquiry committee
was appointed. Six meetings were held from 03.05.2001 to
04.09.2001. The inquiry committee found Respondent No. 1 guilty
by majority of 2:1. The nominee of Respondent No. 1 dissented.
Findings of inquiry committee was intimated to Respondent No. 1 on
03.10.2001 and he was called upon to submit explanation which he
submitted. By order dated 20.10.2001, services of Respondent No. 1
were terminated.
6. This resulted in Respondent No. 1 filing the said appeal under
Section 9 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions
of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, of 1981 (‘the said Act’
and’ the said Rules’, for short). The Petitioner/Management filed
reply/written statement contesting the appeal on merits. The
Tribunal who heard and tried the appeal was pleased to allow it
Husen 3
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
under impugned order as stated earlier.
7. Petition was admitted on 12.08.2005 and on condition of the
Petitioner/Management depositing the back-wages awarded by the
School Tribunal in the Court within stipulated time, the impugned
order of the Tribunal was stayed.
8. The Petitioner/Management pursuant to the directions of the
Court, has filed affidavit dated 10.06.2026 stating that the Petitioner
has deposited the back-wages as per order of the Court while
granting interim relief. It is also stated that the post in question has
been kept vacant and the salary grant has not been utilized.
9. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Bapat appearing for the
Petitioner/Management submitted as under.
9.1. That record clearly indicates that sufficient opportunity was
given to Respondent No. 1 and there is no real prejudice caused to
Respondent No. 1.
9.2. That the Tribunal has erred in holding that Mr. Shivaji H.
Chilekar, Advocate by profession cannot be treated as a member of
the Managing Committee. That the constitution of inquiry committee
was proper and could not have been faulted.
9.3. That Respondent No. 1 has failed to show actual and real
prejudice caused to him due to alleged defects in the procedure.
9.4. That the charges against Respondent No. 1 were serious in
nature which had the effect of damaging the reputation of the school
bringing unhealthy atmosphere amongst the employees and teachers
Husen 4
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
working in the school and it also had adverse effect on the students
taking education in the school.
9.5. That the Tribunal could not have relied upon the disowning of
complaint by the employees, in as much as the Tribunal has lost sight
of the fact that the employees were pressurized by Respondent No. 1
by lodging criminal prosecution against them and also pressurizing
them through union and political persons.
9.6. That even conduct of Respondent No. 1 about giving notice of
hunger strike to education authorities and minister is required to be
noted.
9.7. That when Respondent No.1 was called upon to give
explanation in respect of complaints made by the villagers,
Respondent No. 1 made allegations and sent it all over the State
amounting to misconduct.
9.8. That Respondent No. 1 went to the concerned lady teacher's
house to pressurize her to file complaint against the Management
and when he failed to persuade her and her husband, Respondent
No. 1 created scene and the husband of the concerned lady teacher
was required to file FIR with the police, in which Respondent No. 1
was arrested and was required to take bail.
9.9. That Respondent No. 1 filed a Criminal Case No. 57 of 2001
against 4 employees who had signed complaint and also against the
President of the Petitioner/Trust - Mr. D.K. Kale alleging offence
punishable under Section 500 read with Section 109 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short) for defamation, in which
Husen 5
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
they are acquitted under Order dated 01.09.2003. The complaint
was on the basis of imputation about character of Respondent No. 1.
That even Criminal Appeal No.617 of 2005 filed by Respondent No.
1 challenging the order of acquittal is also dismissed by order dated
12.12.2022 by this Court.
9.10. That charges were specific about bringing disrepute to the
institute/school amounting to misconduct.
9.11. That Respondent No.1 has led evidence and the findings and
conclusions recorded by the inquiry committee, supported by
evidence and material on record, could not have been disturbed by
the Tribunal.
9.12. He submitted that if the documents on record are considered,
then overall it can be seen that principles of natural justice were
followed and no real prejudice has been caused to Respondent No. 1.
9.13. He finally submitted that this is not a case of ‘no notice, no
opportunity and no hearing’ and therefore the Tribunal was not
justified in interfering and therefore the impugned order requires
interference.
9.14. Lastly he submitted that the place where school is situated is a
small village place and after the relationship is so much soured,
Respondent No. 1 should not be reinstated. He relied on following
judgments in support of his case.
(i) State Bank of Patiala and Ors. Vs. S. K. Sharma
(1996) 3 SCC 364.
Husen 6
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
(ii) Secretary, Lucy Sequeira Trust and Anr. Vs. Kailash
Ramesh Tandel and Ors. (2019) 6 SSC 155.
(iii) Surabhi Keshav Sahu Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Bombay High Court, Writ Petition (L) No.29423 of 2022,
judgment dated 28.03.2025.
10. Per contra, learned counsel Ms. Bhatia for Respondent No.1
relying on affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.1 affirmed on
02.05.2005, submitted as under.
10.1. That the Petitioner/Management has not come before the Court
with clean hands. That the so called complaints against Respondent
No. 1 were fraudulently obtained by the Petitioner/Management.
That some of the signatories of the complaints have later on clarified
that their signatures were not voluntary and were obtained by
misguiding them. That some of the so called complainants have even
stated subsequently that they have not signed on the complaint.
10.2. That the lady teacher with whom it is alleged that Respondent
No. 1 had illicit relationship, has given statement in Criminal Case
No. 57 of 2001 denying illicit relations and that she had family
relationship with Respondent No. 1. That the aspect of an alleged
illicit relationship is raised only with an intention to prejudice the
mind of the Court.
10.3. That the document of 08.12.2000 produced along with petition
recording that Respondent No.1 was called for explanation after
complaints, when he has refused to give written explanation. She
submitted that this document is fabricated and is not signed by
Respondent No. 1.
Husen 7
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
10.4. That compliance with statutory requirement under Rule 36 of
the said Rules is mandatory and cannot be avoided. That under Rule
36(1) of the said rules, the Petitioner/Management was expected to
issue letter of allegation and showcase notice calling for explanation
and explanation was required to be considered by the
Petitioner/Management. However, this stage of inquiry is dropped by
the Petitioner/Management which fatal departure from procedure
vitiating the inquiry.
10.5. That the stage of constitution of inquiry committee comes first
as per Rule 36(2) (3) and (4) and stage of issuing charge-sheet
comes thereafter as per Rule 37(1). However, in the present case, the
Petitioner/Management has issued letter dated 12.03.2001 as
covering letter of sending charge-sheet and asking Respondent No. 1
to nominate representative. That this vitiates the inquiry.
10.6. That the Petitioner/Management has deliberately avoided to
make any charge about alleged illicit relationship with lady teacher
as the whole story was concocted against Respondent No. 1.
10.7. That in the police case filed against Respondent No. 1, the said
lady teacher has not stated anything against Respondent No. 1.
10.8. That the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and
has come to the right conclusion that the procedure was not followed
and inquiry is vitiated.
10.9. She urged that re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted and
no interference is required.
Husen 8
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
10.10. That Respondent No. 1 suffers from disability of leg and he
was harassed even before inquiry in question. That presently
Respondent No. 1 is working as a labour and is about 55 years old as
on today and can still be reinstated. She relied on the following
Judgment in support of her case :
(i) Vidya Vikas Mandal and Anr. Vs. Education Officer and
Anr. 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 801.
11. Learned AGP contended that since Respondent No. 1 has
served for less than 5 years (from 26.09.1997 to 20.10.2001) there is
no provision for giving pensionary benefits on the basis of notional
reinstatement and therefore Respondent No. 1 cannot be paid any
pensionary benefits. She submitted that if the Management has kept
the post vacant, it is an act detrimental to students’ education and
therefore should be taken serious note of by this Court.
THE NEW TREND
12. After the Court heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
Respondent No.1 (who was present in the Court throughout the
hearing) insisted that he should be heard in person. When the Court
indicated that since he has engaged a lawyer who has ably argued the
matter fully in support of his case, further hearing may not be
necessary. However, Respondent No. 1 insisted that he must be heard.
In order to avoid even the remotest possible prejudice to Respondent
No. 1, the Court heard Respondent No. 1 for some time and the
matter was closed for judgment.
13. But surprisingly, Respondent No. 1 was not satiated.
Husen 9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
14. Even thereafter, Respondent No. 1 has chosen to file
representations addressed to the Chief Justice making statements that
his lawyer has not argued the case properly. Respondent No. 1 has
filed as many as three such representations with documents.
15. The Sum and substance of the representations given by
Respondent No. 1 is that he is the sole breadwinner for the family
and his mother and sister have expired leaving behind 3 children and
his brother is also disabled (deaf and dumb). He has annexed
disability certificate of his brother and death certificates of his mother
and sister. He has narrated the long and checkered history of the
litigation and has prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.
However, he has also stated that considering overall situation, he has
no desire to serve in the organization at all, and if his request is
accepted, he will voluntarily resign from the service. He has stated
that he should be held eligible for pension and full benefit. He has
claimed that he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 crores.
Respondent No.1 has made loose statements such as his advocates
were managed and the Petitioner/Management has tried to kill him 5
times. He has also stated that he is indebted and he and his family
are living in precarious conditions on wages. He has also stated that
if his request is accepted he will not file any defamation case about
proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.671 of 2005 and all cases will be
disposed of.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
16. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
Husen 10
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
17. At the outset, it is important to note that even though
Respondent No. 1 has resorted to filing representations, making
various allegations against his lawyer and raising disputes in the
manner narrated above, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in
the limited writ jurisdiction invoked, only the legality of the
impugned order is to be seen.
18. General and omnibus submissions made by party-in-person by
writing applications and representations after the case is closed for
judgment on hearing his advocate fully, cannot be entertained.
19. It has come on record that Respondent No. 1 had resorted to
method such as giving notice of hunger strike etc. in the past and the
present attempt to file multiple representations in a case closed for
judgment, appears to be nothing but further attempt to invoke
sympathy and create confusion in the mind of the Court.
20. Although Respondent No. 1 may be in financially precarious
condition and may have suffered loss of family members, the said
aspects, assuming them to be true, cannot cloud the judgment of the
Court which must be made on the basis of material on record that
was considered by the Tribunal.
21. It is important to note that Respondent No. 1 has permitted his
advocate to argue the matter fully and thereafter has chosen to not
only to insist with the Court that he must be heard in person but has
also chosen to file applications and representations addressed to the
Chief Justice making allegation against his advocate that case is not
properly argued. Such conduct cannot be countenanced, and in any
Husen 11
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
case, cannot be permitted to cloud the judgment of the Court.
22. It is not out of place to mention here that Respondent No. 1
has stated that if his request is accepted, he will not file any case or
claim of defamation in respect of proceedings in Criminal Appeal No.
617 of 2005. Said appeal was filed by Respondent No. 1 in this Court
challenging the order of acquittal of the President of
Petitioner/School and other employees. It has come on record that
said appeal is already dismissed by this Court on 12.12.2022 after
hearing both sides. Having failed in his complaint against the
President of the Petitioner/Management and other employees of the
school alleging defamation, Respondent No.1 is now stating that he
will not file any case of defamation if his request is accepted. Such
submission is only stated to be rejected.
23. Be that as it may. The Court will discount the conduct of the
the Respondent No. 1 as he might have acted in frustration.
BACK TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE
24. Now, returning back to the case at hand so far as impugned
order is concerned, it is necessary to note the law in respect of
challenge to the findings of the inquiry committee.
25. Useful reference can be made to paragraph 33(3) of State Bank
of Patiala (Supra). It is held by the 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
Husen 12
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
enquiry 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 also held that if no prejudice
is established, no interference is required.
26. In State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and
Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 316, 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.
27. 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 has reiterated that the test is “all things taken together
whether the delinquent had or did not have a fair hearing ?”. This
has to be considered.
28. Therefore, it is clear that for the Tribunal or this Court to
interfere in the findings of the inquiry committee, the only material
consideration is whether the delinquent has suffered real prejudice.
29. So, in the facts of the present case, let us now consider if
Respondent No. 1 was given sufficient opportunity to defend his case
and whether any real prejudice has caused to him due to alleged non-
Husen 13
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
compliance with the procedural rules. In that regard, following
aspects are necessary to be noted:
(i) Respondent No. 1 has received the copy of charges which was
replied by letter dated 19.03.2001. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-
in-reply has himself stated that he has replied to the charge-sheet by
issuing his letter denying the charges.
(ii) Respondent No.1 has duly nominated his nominee on the
inquiry committee.
(iii) By letter dated 06.10.2001, copy of inquiry committee's report
and decision was sent to Respondent No. 1 calling for explanation.
(iv) The proceedings of the Inquiry Committee are produced on
record which shows that on 03.05.2001, the first meeting was held
where it was decided to call Respondent No.1 and his family
members for evidence and it was further decided to call 6 villagers
who had given complaint. In that view of the matter, the
observations of the Tribunal that in the first meeting itself conclusion
was drawn about guilt of Respondent No. 1, is not correct.
(v) The next meeting was held on 10.06.2001, when evidence of
Respondent No.1, his mother, sister and sister-in-law was taken. In
the same meeting, the President of the management Mr. D.K. Kale
was also examined.
(vi) Thereafter, on 29.07.2001, the letter given by Respondent No.1
was read out and considered.
(vii) For all three meetings, the representative nominee of the
Husen 14
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
Respondent No.1 - Mr. Murlidhar Bijraj Kankariya was present.
(viii) The Tribunal has recorded that six meetings took place.
(ix) The Respondent No.1 has also given his further explanation
under communication dated 13.10.2001.
30. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has
gone into the complaint letter received from the villagers, which
resulted into the inquiry. The Tribunal has held that in that
complaint, signature of one of the person is appearing at 2 places and
once in Marathi and another in English and therefore, the
authenticity of the complaint is doubtful. The Tribunal has also held
that out of many who had signed the complaint, 4 persons had stated
later on that they do not admit the contents of the complaint and/or
the President of the Petitioner/Management has obtained their
signatures. The Tribunal has considered statements made by
witnesses in the criminal proceedings about the alleged illicit
relationship between Respondent No. 1 and the lady teacher. The
Tribunal has held that at no stage of the inquiry, evidence of the
concerned lady teacher was recorded. The Tribunal has held that the
Management was at pains to establish nexus between Respondent
No. 1 and his so called illicit relation with lady teacher. The Tribunal
has not discussed anything about the merits of the inquiry conducted
(about misconduct and bringing disrepute to the school) and has
directly held in paragraph No. 24 of the impugned order that the
findings of the inquiry committee are baseless.
31. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has proceeded on the
Husen 15
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
footing that ‘the alleged illicit relationship between Respondent No. 1
and a lady teacher’ is the charge, which is not properly proved. Here
lies the problem. It is most important to note that charge was
misconduct by sending reply dated 19.01.2001 (to the letter of
Petitioner/ Management dated 12.01.2001 asking for explanation
about complaint from the villagers) resulting in disrepute to the
institution amounting to misconduct. The charge was also about
making baseless allegations against the President of the Management
under letter dated 19.01.2001. The charge was also in respect of
trying to pressurize the concerned lady teacher and his family
members by using abuse and threatening language resulting in
complaint filed by husband of the lady teacher resulting in arrest of
Respondent No. 1 amounting to misconduct and defamation and
bringing disrepute to the institution.
32. Therefore, it is clear that the charges were not in respect of the
illicit relation between Respondent No. 1 and the said lady teacher
per se , but the charges were in respect of conduct of Respondent No.
1 making baseless allegations against the President of the
Management and sending it all over the State bringing disrepute to
the institution amounting to misconduct.
33. Perusal of reply given by Respondent No. 1 dated 19.01.2001
indicates that Respondent No. 1 resorted to sending copies of the
Reply to Ministers, Education Minister, various teachers' associations,
police authorities and Education Authorities. Bare perusal of the reply
sent by Respondent No. 1 to the explanation sought, would show that
Respondent No. 1 resorted to a method of raising counter allegations
Husen 16
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
and making the whole dispute about known to virtually entire State.
Further, the Respondent No. 1 then issued legal notice, reiterating the
threat of sitting on hunger strike and also threatening criminal
action. These actions adopted by Respondent No. 1 clearly establish
that Respondent No. 1 blew the case out of proportion and
allegations against the president of Petitioner/Management involving
the school was made known to various entities as explained above
and since this resulted in bringing disrepute to the school and
management, charges were framed.
34. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner is therefore right in
submitting that the committee was not really concerned with whether
there was illicit relation between Respondent No. 1 and a lady
teacher, but the committee was concerned with whether the actions
of Respondent No. 1 has resulted in disrepute to the institute
amounting to misconduct. Obviously therefore even the Tribunal was
not and could not have been really concerned with whether alleged
illicit relation between Respondent No. 1 and a lady teacher was
proved or not, but should have been concerned with whether the
actions of Respondent No. 1 has resulted in disrepute to the institute
amounting to misconduct. In that view of the matter, the entire
approach adopted by the Tribunal appears to be perverse.
35. Tribunal has held that first meeting of inquiry committee held
on 03.05.2001 violates Rule 36(2)(a) of the said Rules because it is
attended by 4 members. The Tribunal has held that according to Rule
36(2), the inquiry committee consists of 3 members and therefore,
th
attendance of 4 member violates the Rules. It is important to note
Husen 17
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
that the required 3 members of the inquiry committee was attending
th
and therefore the presence of 4 member cannot be taken to vitiate
the entire inquiry proceedings.
36. The second fault found by the learned Tribunal is that the
Management has sent charge-sheet along with letter dated
12.03.2001 asking Respondent No. 1 to give his nominee, meaning
thereby that inquiry committee should have been first formed and
then charges should have been framed. The Tribunal held that this
act of sending charge-sheet along with letter asking for nomination is
violative of the Rules 36 and 37 and it is against the spirit of Rules.
The Tribunal has also held that Advocate Chilekar was an advisor of
the Management and therefore, he cannot be treated as a member of
the Managing Committee, which is violative of Rule 36(2) of the said
Rules.
37. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the
Respondent No.1 has been given sufficient opportunity to defend
himself and no real prejudice was caused. For the same reason, it
cannot be said that the alleged violation of Rules are fatal to the
entire proceedings of the inquiry committee. Record shows that
Respondent No. 1 has adopted the approach of not tendering
explanation when called for. Therefore, no real prejudice is shown to
have been caused to Respondent No. 1. This is not a case of ‘no
notice, no opportunity and no hearing’ and the crucial test as to
‘whether all things taken together, the delinquent had or did not have
fair hearing?’ must be answered in ‘Yes’.
38. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
Husen 18
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
WP-2115-2005(J) C2.doc
indicated above, the impugned order is found perverse and therefore,
cannot be sustained. Interference is required. Petition therefore
succeeds.
39. The impugned order has remained stayed from 12.08.2005 for
last 21 years. The Respondent No.1 has served only for about 4 years
and 1 month. 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. In fact in his representations, he has stated that he has been
living on wages. State has taken clear stand that no benefit can be
given.
40. In the net result, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 03.02.2005 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 is at
liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the
Petitioner/Management in this Court pursuant to order dated
12.08.2005, with accrued interest, if any. Rule is made absolute in
above terms. No order as to costs.
41. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Husen 19
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 20:27:31
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)