A defective disciplinary inquiry warrants limited reinstatement for fresh proceedings, with back wages deferred until their outcome.

Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Teacher, was suspended after allegations of sexual misconduct involving a Class VII student.

Following a departmental enquiry, the Management terminated his services on 30 June 2018.

The School Tribunal set aside the termination and awarded 50% back wages.

The Management challenged that decision, contending that any procedural defect should result in remand for a fresh enquiry, not a final award of reinstatement and back wages.

The High Court found material procedural defects, including the teacher’s inability to participate effectively in person because of a bail condition and concerns over access to documents and effective cross-examination.

1. Whether the termination could stand when the disciplinary enquiry was materially defective and did not afford the teacher an effective opportunity to defend himself.

2. Whether the School Tribunal could grant reinstatement with 50% back wages, or whether the matter should be remitted for completion of a lawful enquiry with consequential benefits left open.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court reviewed the Tribunal’s decision.

The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed under it govern disciplinary enquiries; those proceedings must comply with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.

Relying on LIC v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, the Court held that where punishment is set aside because an enquiry was improperly conducted, the matter should ordinarily be remitted to the disciplinary authority to continue the enquiry from the point of defect, with the gravity of the alleged misconduct relevant to whether a fresh enquiry should be permitted.

Applying U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264, and Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal v. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha, 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 753, the Court held that reinstatement may be ordered for the limited purpose of completing the enquiry, while back wages and other benefits are ordinarily left for determination after the enquiry concludes.

The Court also noted the prejudice-based approach to non-supply of an enquiry report discussed in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, as quoted in U.P. State Spinning.

The Court held that the defects were material, not merely technical: the teacher’s bail condition restricted his access to the area where the enquiry was held, and the record did not establish that he had a meaningful opportunity to participate, obtain relevant material, instruct his representative, and meet the evidence.

The seriousness of the allegation did not establish guilt or excuse procedural unfairness; it supported conducting a proper enquiry.

Because the charges had not been lawfully determined, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination but erred in treating the proceedings as concluded and awarding 50% back wages.

The appropriate relief was limited-purpose reinstatement and remittal for continuation of the enquiry, with monetary and service benefits left open.

The termination order was quashed, and Respondent No. 1 was to be reinstated solely to enable completion of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Management was permitted to continue the enquiry from after service of the charge-sheet, subject to the MEPS Act and Rules and the requirements of natural justice; the fresh enquiry was to be completed within four months.

The direction for 50% back wages and the Tribunal’s compensatory-costs orders were set aside.

Subsistence allowance, if payable under the applicable provisions, and back wages, continuity of service, and other consequential benefits were left for determination in accordance with law after the enquiry.

The Court expressed no view on the truth of the charges.