The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that termination of a permanent employee through forced retirement without issuing a formal chargesheet and denying the right to cross-examine witnesses constitutes a gross violation of natural justice. The judgment underscores that procedural compliance under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 is non-negotiable, and any deviation renders the action illegal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the forced retirement of Respondent No.1, Anil Sakharam Kamble, a permanent employee of Vidya Mandir Mandal, the managing trust of a government-aided secondary school in Pune. Kamble, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, was appointed as a Class IV employee in 1990 and later promoted to Junior Clerk on 10.05.1999 and Senior Clerk in July 2012. He served continuously until his termination on 25.06.2018. The management alleged misconduct and initiated a departmental inquiry, culminating in his forced retirement. Kamble challenged the order before the School Tribunal, which set it aside and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
Key Facts
- Respondent No.1 was appointed as a permanent employee on 10.05.1999 after due process and approval by the Education Officer
- He was promoted to Senior Clerk in July 2012
- From 2016, he faced alleged harassment by the Headmaster and Treasurer
- On 23.09.2017, a show cause notice was issued for alleged dereliction of duty
- He submitted replies on 09.10.2017, 25.10.2017, and 25.11.2017
- A show cause notice dated 13.01.2018 was issued, calling for nomination of a representative for the Enquiry Committee
- No formal chargesheet was issued at any stage
- Three meetings of the Enquiry Committee were held on 17.01.2018, 28.02.2018, and 26.03.2018
- In the third meeting, five witnesses were examined; cross-examination was permitted for only two
- Request to cross-examine three other witnesses was denied on the ground that their evidence was "already over"
- Enquiry Report dated 03.04.2018 was submitted by two members of the Committee
- Forced retirement order dated 25.06.2018 was issued by the Chairman of the Trust
- Kamble filed a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the MEPS Act, 1977 on 15.07.2018
- School Tribunal delivered judgment on 06.12.2021, setting aside the termination
- Tribunal directed reinstatement and payment of back wages within 30 days, i.e., by 06.01.2022
- Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1202 of 2022 on 16.01.2022
- No interim relief was sought or obtained
- Respondent No.1 attained superannuation on 31.08.2024
- Petitioners did not appoint any replacement for the vacant post
Procedural History
- 1990: Respondent No.1 appointed as Class IV employee
- 10.05.1999: Appointed as Junior Clerk on permanent post
- July 2012: Promoted to Senior Clerk
- 2016 - 2017: Alleged harassment and memos issued for dereliction
- 23.09.2017: First show cause notice issued
- 09.10.2017: First reply submitted
- 13.10.2017: Second show cause notice issued
- 25.10.2017: Second reply submitted
- 15.10.2017: Joint Secretary sought further explanation
- 25.11.2017: Third reply submitted
- 13.01.2018: Show cause notice issued for formation of Enquiry Committee
- 17.01.2018: First Enquiry Committee meeting - no proceedings
- 28.02.2018: Second Enquiry Committee meeting - no proceedings
- 26.03.2018: Third Enquiry Committee meeting - five witnesses examined, cross-examination denied for three
- 03.04.2018: Enquiry Report submitted
- 16.06.2018: Nominated member’s report submitted
- 25.06.2018: Forced retirement order issued
- 15.07.2018: Statutory appeal filed before School Tribunal
- 06.12.2021: School Tribunal sets aside termination, orders reinstatement and back wages
- 06.01.2022: Deadline for compliance expired without compliance
- 16.01.2022: Writ Petition filed before Bombay High Court
- 03.09.2025: First listing before High Court
- 27.03.2026: Final arguments concluded
- 31.08.2024: Respondent No.1 attained superannuation
- 07.04.2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners (Vidya Mandir Mandal and School): Argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, that the 13.01.2018 notice constituted a chargesheet, and that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination. In the alternative, they contended that since the post remained vacant and unoccupied, and no grant-in-aid was claimed for it after termination, the State (Respondent No.2) should bear the liability for back wages.
Respondent No.1 (Anil Sakharam Kamble): Contended that no chargesheet was issued, no specific allegations were communicated, and cross-examination rights were arbitrarily denied. He emphasized his 28 years of continuous service and argued that the Tribunal’s findings were legally sound and that the Petitioners’ delay and inaction amounted to abuse of process.
Respondent No.2 (State / Education Officer): Opposed the alternate submission, asserting that the MEPS Act and Rules bind the managing trust to pay back wages. Relied on Educational Society, Tumsar v. State of Maharashtra and other precedents to argue that the State cannot be made liable for the trust’s procedural failures.
Relief Sought
The Petitioners sought quashing of the School Tribunal’s order dated 06.12.2021 and, in the alternative, a direction that the State pay back wages and retirement benefits. The Respondent sought confirmation of the Tribunal’s order, payment of back wages with interest, and costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the issuance of a show cause notice without a formal chargesheet, coupled with the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses, vitiates a departmental inquiry under Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981, and whether the managing trust can shift liability for back wages to the State on the ground that the post remained vacant.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The Petitioners contended that the 13.01.2018 notice served as a chargesheet under Section 4(1) of the MEPS Act, 1977 read with Rule 28 and 33 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. They argued that the School Tribunal erred in equating the notice with a mere procedural step and that the inquiry was otherwise valid. In the alternative, they submitted that since the post was 100% aided and remained vacant, and no grant-in-aid was claimed for it after termination, the State (Respondent No.2) should be directed to pay the back wages and retirement benefits. They relied on Government Resolution dated 14.03.1978, though it was not pleaded before the Tribunal.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the 13.01.2018 notice was not a chargesheet as it contained no specific allegations and merely requested nomination of a representative. It emphasized that Rule 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 mandates issuance of a formal chargesheet containing specific charges, which was never done. The State further argued that the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Harbajan Singh Greasy and this Court’s decisions in Rajapur Shiksham Prasarak Mandal and Rangdas Swami Shikshan Mandal hold that the managing trust, not the State, is liable for back wages when termination is found illegal. The alternate submission was rejected as an afterthought, not pleaded in the petition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the inquiry record and found that the Petitioners failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981. The judgment emphasized that a chargesheet is not a mere formality but the foundational document that informs the delinquent employee of the specific charges against him, enabling him to prepare a defense.
"The object behind issuing charge sheet is to inform the delinquent about the charges levelled against him. So also the charge sheet is an opportunity to the delinquent to explain his defence in respect of charges. Admittedly in the present case the respondents have not issued the charge sheet, therefore, certainly the appellant delinquent deprived of his valuable right of explanation in respect of charges."
The Court noted that the 13.01.2018 notice, though labeled as a show cause notice, contained no allegations, no specific charges, and no reference to any misconduct. It merely requested the employee to nominate a representative - a procedural step, not a chargesheet. The Tribunal correctly held that this rendered the entire inquiry void ab initio.
Further, the Court found that the denial of cross-examination to three of the five witnesses, despite timely requests, violated the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Committee’s rationale - that evidence was "already over" - was legally untenable. Cross-examination must be permitted at the time of evidence recording, not after.
The Court rejected the Petitioners’ alternate submission that the State should bear the liability for back wages. It held that the State was not a party to the employment contract, had no control over the inquiry, and had not been impleaded as a respondent in the Tribunal proceedings. The reliance on Government Resolution dated 14.03.1978 was dismissed as inapplicable, having been superseded by the MEPS Rules, 1981.
The Court also condemned the Petitioners’ conduct: filing the writ petition without seeking interim stay, allowing the employee to attain superannuation, and raising a new relief only at the final hearing. Such conduct, the Court held, amounted to abuse of process and could not be countenanced.
The Verdict
The Writ Petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the School Tribunal’s order dated 06.12.2021, which quashed the forced retirement order and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. Since the Respondent had attained superannuation, reinstatement was rendered impossible. The Court directed the Petitioners to compute the back wages as per the Tribunal’s order, submit the calculation to Respondent No.2 within two weeks, obtain approval within one week, and pay the entire amount - including 6% simple interest - within four weeks from the date of judgment. The Respondent was directed to sign all service documents within one week. The Petitioners were held solely liable for payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Any departmental inquiry under the MEPS Act, 1977 must strictly follow Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981
- A show cause notice cannot substitute a formal chargesheet containing specific allegations
- Failure to issue a chargesheet renders the entire inquiry void, regardless of the employee’s conduct
Cross-Examination Is a Fundamental Right
- Employees must be granted the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the time their evidence is recorded
- Denial of cross-examination on grounds of "evidence being over" is legally invalid and violates natural justice
- Tribunals and courts will not uphold findings based on evidence where cross-examination was denied
Liability for Back Wages Rests with the Employer
-
Government-aided institutions cannot shift liability for illegal termination to the State
-
The State is not vicariously liable for the procedural lapses of managing trusts
-
Back wages and retirement benefits must be paid by the employer, even if the post remains vacant
-
Practitioners must insist on production of the chargesheet in all departmental proceedings
-
If no chargesheet is produced, the inquiry is defective on its face - no need to prove prejudice
-
Delay in filing writ petitions without seeking stay may result in loss of reinstatement rights, but does not absolve the employer of liability for back wages
-
Always verify whether the notice issued is a chargesheet or merely a procedural notice
-
In cases involving aided institutions, argue that the managing body, not the State, is the employer under the MEPS Act
-
Where superannuation occurs during litigation, seek direct payment of back wages with interest as the only viable remedy
