Bombay HC Upholds 75% Back Wages Until Retirement For Teacher Accused Of Molesting Student After School Failed To Show Lawful Basis To Reopen Same Charges

The Management initiated disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No. 1, a teacher, following allegations of misconduct involving a minor girl student. After the first enquiry, penalties were imposed; the Education authority later set aside the Enquiry Committee’s report. The Management subsequently obtained what it claimed was permission to conduct a fresh enquiry, which resulted in Respondent No. 1’s termination on 21 September 2016.

Respondent No. 1 appealed, and the School Tribunal set aside the termination, ordered reinstatement and awarded 75% back wages. The Management challenged that order in this writ petition.

Section 4-A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, empowers the Director, in cases involving serious misconduct or moral turpitude, to examine an enquiry in which an employee was allegedly unreasonably exonerated and to take specified action, including directing the recording of additional evidence; the affected employee and Management must receive an opportunity to be heard.

The provision does not confer on the Management an independent, unrestricted power to reopen a completed enquiry.

Under Union of India v. K.D. Pandey, repeated enquiries cannot be ordered merely to obtain a finding acceptable to the disciplinary authority.

K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise, as discussed in Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India, recognises that further evidence may be taken where a proper enquiry was impaired by a serious defect or other legitimate reason, but dissatisfaction with the enquiry report alone is insufficient to set it aside and order another enquiry.

A second disciplinary action on the same cause of action, without legal authority, may amount to impermissible double jeopardy in the service-law sense.

The Tribunal found that the second enquiry substantially repeated the first enquiry’s charges, including the principal allegations concerning the same student, and the Management did not displace that finding.

Although the victim’s mental trauma and the possibility of additional evidence were relevant, they did not dispense with the statutory procedure required by Section 4-A.

The record did not establish that the Director had validly exercised the statutory power, considered the requirements of Section 4-A, and afforded Respondent No. 1 a proper hearing before the later enquiry.

The seriousness of the allegations could not cure that procedural and legal defect; accordingly, the termination based on the second enquiry could not stand.

The Tribunal’s award of 75% back wages was also upheld, the Management having shown no sufficient reason to interfere with it.

Because Respondent No. 1 had reached superannuation during the proceedings, reinstatement was replaced by entitlement to admissible consequential service and retiral benefits. He was awarded 75% back wages from termination until the date he would have attained superannuation; liability was assigned to the State if the relevant grant-in-aid had not been released, and otherwise to the Management.

The benefits and back wages were to be calculated and paid within twelve weeks of production of an authenticated copy of the judgment; the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.