A defective inquiry warrants limited-purpose reinstatement; back wages await the fresh proceedings’ outcome.

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

The Management conducted a disciplinary enquiry and 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 defects should result in a fresh enquiry rather than final relief; Respondent No. 1 relied on alleged denial of an effective opportunity to participate, including because of a bail condition restricting his entry into the area where the enquiry was held.

The High Court found material procedural defects in the enquiry, including concerns regarding the teacher’s participation and access to material, but considered whether the disciplinary proceedings should be resumed and whether back wages could be awarded before their conclusion.

1. Whether termination based on a disciplinary enquiry affected by material procedural defects could stand, or whether the Management should be permitted to continue the enquiry from the stage at which it became defective.

2. Whether the School Tribunal was justified in awarding 50% back wages before the fresh disciplinary proceedings and the charges had been determined.

Under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed under it, disciplinary proceedings must comply with the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice, including a meaningful opportunity for the employee to meet the evidence.

In LIC v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530, where punishment is set aside because an enquiry was improperly conducted, the matter may be remitted to the disciplinary authority to continue the enquiry from the point at which it was vitiated; whether a fresh enquiry should be permitted depends on the gravity of the misconduct.

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, support setting aside punishment founded on a defective enquiry, permitting the proceedings to continue, and determining back wages and other benefits in light of the outcome.

Serious allegations do not displace procedural safeguards; they reinforce the need for a fair enquiry.

The Court held that the teacher’s inability to attend the enquiry because of the bail condition, together with the concerns about his effective participation, access to documents and opportunity to defend himself, amounted to material procedural defects; nomination of a representative did not by itself cure those defects.

The allegations were serious, but their seriousness justified a properly conducted enquiry and did not permit the Management to bypass natural justice.

The Court therefore set aside the termination while allowing the Management to resume the enquiry from the stage after service of the charge-sheet.

Since the charges remained undecided, the Tribunal’s award of 50% back wages was premature; entitlement to back wages and other benefits was left for determination after the fresh proceedings.

The termination order was quashed, and Respondent No. 1 was to be reinstated solely to enable completion of the disciplinary proceedings, without this constituting exoneration.

The Management was permitted to continue the enquiry from the stage after service of the charge-sheet, with a proper opportunity to defend, and was directed to complete it within four months.

The award of 50% back wages and the Tribunal’s compensatory-costs directions were set aside.

Questions of back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits were left open for determination after the enquiry; subsistence allowance was to be determined in accordance with the applicable Rules.