Bombay HC Sets Aside Junior Clerk’s Termination Over Alleged Rs 51,000 Scrap Deal, Orders Fresh Enquiry After Rule 37 Breach

The respondent, appointed as a Hamal/Sweeper and later promoted to Junior Clerk, was charged with collecting ₹51,000 from two scrap dealers and issuing receipts in the Polytechnic’s name.

After an earlier enquiry was discontinued, a fresh enquiry resulted in two committee members finding him guilty and a third finding him not guilty.

The Management accepted the majority reports and terminated his service on 23 April 2015.

The School Tribunal set aside the termination, directed reinstatement and awarded 75% back wages; the Management challenged that decision.

Whether the enquiry and reports complied with Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the termination and refusing a fresh enquiry, and whether its reinstatement and back-wage directions could stand.

Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 requires a fair opportunity to defend, provision of the prescribed summary and witness statements, an opportunity for the employee’s explanation, and communication of the committee’s findings and decision; under Rule 37(6), the committee must submit a combined report, whether members agree or dissent.

Under State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, procedural breaches do not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings: the court must consider the nature of the requirement and resulting prejudice, though violation of a basic requirement may itself establish prejudice.

Vidya Vikas Mandal v. Education Officer, (2007) 11 SCC 352, holds that Rule 37(6) requires a combined report and permits the matter to be considered afresh by a committee constituted under Rule 36(2)(a) when that requirement is breached.

The Court held that the record did not establish compliance with the prescribed steps for providing the employee an opportunity to explain, and the committee members submitted separate reports rather than the combined report required by Rule 37(6).

The delay in sending the reports reinforced the procedural concerns; majority agreement did not cure the defect.

Although the Tribunal could assess the evidentiary weaknesses—including uncertainty over the receipts and the Management witness’s lack of direct knowledge—the letter and the respondent’s admissions could not simply be disregarded; nor did the Court determine the charges conclusively.

Because the defect concerned the enquiry process, rather than merely an unsuccessful attempt to prove charges in a valid enquiry, a fresh enquiry was permissible.

The back-wage award was also unsustainable, including because it began before the termination date without an adequate basis.

The finding that the enquiry failed to comply with Rule 37 and the termination order dated 23 April 2015 were upheld as invalid; the Tribunal’s directions for reinstatement with continuity and 75% back wages were set aside.

The Management was directed to constitute a fresh committee under Rule 36(2)(a) and complete the enquiry under Rule 37 within six months, with the respondent given a reasonable opportunity to defend.

Consequential service benefits and back wages were left to abide by the fresh enquiry and applicable law; no order as to costs was made.

The operative order describes reinstatement as “Assistant Teacher,” although the judgment’s factual account identifies the respondent’s post as Junior Clerk.