After 18 Years’ Service, Polytechnic Lecturer Gets ₹16 Lakh as Bombay HC Confirms Inquiry Findings but Deems Firing Disproportionate

Respondent No. 1, a lecturer employed by the petitioners since 1991, was terminated on 31 January 2009 following a disciplinary inquiry in which the committee found nine of ten charges proved.

He appealed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977.

The School Tribunal held that the inquiry violated Rule 37(5) of the MEPS Rules because he had not been given an opportunity to submit a further explanation after receiving the summary of proceedings; it set aside the termination and directed reinstatement for a fresh inquiry, with salary pending its completion.

The Management challenged that order.

The High Court noted that the Tribunal’s order had been stayed and that, by the time of judgment, the employee had reached superannuation.

Whether the failure to seek the employee’s further explanation under Rule 37(5) of the MEPS Rules vitiated the inquiry, absent demonstrated prejudice

Whether, in the circumstances, termination was a proportionate penalty and what relief should be granted

Rule 37(5) of the MEPS Rules requires the inquiry committee to provide the delinquent employee with the summary of proceedings and an opportunity to submit a further explanation.

Under State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, procedural violations in a disciplinary inquiry do not automatically invalidate the proceedings; except in cases involving no notice, opportunity, or hearing, the court must assess whether the violation caused prejudice to the employee’s ability to defend himself.

State Bank of India v. Bidyut Kumar Mitra reiterates that prejudice must be pleaded and proved.

The Division Bench decision in Surabhi Keshav Sahu v. State of Maharashtra applies the overall test of whether, considering all circumstances, the employee received a fair hearing.

The Court found that the employee had not shown prejudice from the failure to seek a further explanation.

He did not submit an explanation to the statement of allegations, had a representative of his choice on the inquiry committee, cross-examined the Management’s witness, was given numerous opportunities to present evidence, and did not examine witnesses; the inquiry comprised 38 sittings.

Applying the prejudice and fair-hearing tests, the Court held that the procedural omission did not justify setting aside the inquiry.

It then considered the charges and the circumstances, including the employee’s 18 years of service before termination, the time remaining until retirement, the absence of conclusive evidence of gainful employment, and the apparent timing of the inquiry after he sought service-related dues.

It concluded that termination was disproportionate and that lump-sum compensation was appropriate.

It held that termination was disproportionate and directed the Management to pay the employee Rs. 16 lakh as lump-sum compensation within six weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum from the end of that period until realization.

The Rule was made partly absolute, with no order as to costs.