MEPS Act Section 9 | Termination Without Substantiated Charges Violates Natural Justice: Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench)

The Bombay High Court's judgment in Pradeep Gaikwad v. Maroti Sakhre reaffirms the principle that termination of service under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) must be based on substantiated charges and compliance with procedural safeguards. The Court upheld the School Tribunal's decision to reinstate a wrongfully terminated teacher, emphasizing that unsubstantiated allegations and procedural lapses render termination orders illegal and perverse.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, the President and Headmaster of Disha Kendra, a private school in Nanded, terminated the services of the respondent, an Assistant Teacher, on 12.03.2007. The termination followed a chargesheet alleging eight instances of misconduct, including absenteeism, involvement in a criminal case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and breach of service rules. The respondent challenged the termination before the School Tribunal, Latur, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act.

Key Facts

• The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.08.1994 and held an unblemished record until the dispute arose.
• In September 2005, the respondent applied for promotion to the post of Headmaster but was overlooked in favor of the petitioner no.1’s brother-in-law.
• A chargesheet was issued on 16.10.2006, alleging:
  1. Absconding after registration of FIR No. 27/2006 under Section 379 IPC for theft of sand.
  2. Unauthorized absence from 22.06.2006 without prior intimation.
  3. Involvement in illegal sand sales while in government service.
  4. Negligence in exam duties (penalty of stopped increment for one year already imposed).
  5. Taking exam papers home for checking without authorization.
  6. Refusal to perform exam-related duties.
  7. Breach of confidentiality regarding school functioning.
  8. Availing tax benefits under disability head without intimation, causing loss to the government.
• The respondent refuted all charges in his reply dated 16.10.2006.
• An inquiry committee was constituted, but its composition allegedly violated MEPS Act rules.
• The respondent was terminated w.e.f. 10.03.2007.

Procedural History

• 16.10.2006: Respondent submits reply to chargesheet.
• 12.03.2007: Termination order issued by the petitioner institution.
• 29.01.2009: School Tribunal allows the respondent’s appeal, sets aside termination order, and directs reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
• 2009: Petitioners file Writ Petition No. 4188 of 2009 before the Bombay High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s order.
• 2016: Civil Application No. 3185 of 2016 filed by the respondent for withdrawal of deposited amount.
• 18.06.2026: Matter reserved for judgment.
• 23.06.2026: High Court dismisses the writ petition.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners

• Argued that the respondent’s misconduct, including involvement in a criminal case (Section 379 IPC), absenteeism, and breach of service rules, justified termination.
• Contended that the inquiry committee followed due procedure and that the termination was compliant with MEPS Act rules.
• Submitted that the School Tribunal erred in interfering with the management’s decision.

For the Respondent

• Alleged victimization to accommodate the petitioner no.1’s brother-in-law as Headmaster.
• Argued that none of the charges were substantiated:
  • Section 379 IPC case: Respondent was acquitted by JMFC, Biloli, on 14.05.2008.
  • Absenteeism: Leave applications and medical certificates were submitted.
  • Sand sales: No evidence of involvement.
  • Exam duties: No distinct evidence of negligence.
  • Tax benefits: Disability certificate was produced; no action was taken by the Education Department.
• Highlighted procedural lapses, including non-compliance with Rule 36(1) and Rule 37 of the MEPS Act (failure to grant subsistence allowance during inquiry).

Relief Sought

• Petitioners: Sought quashing of the School Tribunal’s order dated 29.01.2009 and reinstatement of the termination order.
• Respondent: Sought dismissal of the writ petition, withdrawal of the deposited amount with interest, and continuation of reinstatement benefits.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the termination of the respondent’s services under the MEPS Act was justified in the absence of substantiated charges and compliance with procedural safeguards, including the grant of subsistence allowance and constitution of a valid inquiry committee.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Relied on the management’s prerogative to terminate services for misconduct, citing the respondent’s alleged involvement in criminal activities and breach of service rules.
• Argued that the inquiry committee followed due process and that the charges were sufficient to warrant termination.

For the Respondent

• Contended that the charges were fabricated to deprive him of a promotional post.
• Emphasized the respondent’s acquittal in the Section 379 IPC case and the lack of evidence for other charges.
• Highlighted procedural violations, including the failure to grant subsistence allowance and the improper constitution of the inquiry committee.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed examination of the charges and the procedural compliance under the MEPS Act:

1. Acquittal in Criminal Case:

   • The respondent was acquitted in R.C.C. No. 131 of 2006 for the offence under Section 379 IPC, receiving a clean chit. The Court noted that no appeal was filed against the acquittal, rendering the charge unsubstantiated.

2. Absenteeism:

   • The respondent produced leave applications and medical certificates, disproving the allegation of unauthorized absence.

3. Sand Sales and Exam Duties:

   • No evidence was placed on record to substantiate the charges of illegal sand sales or negligence in exam duties.

4. Procedural Lapses:

   • The inquiry committee was not constituted as per MEPS Act rules, and the petitioners failed to grant subsistence allowance, a violation of Rule 36(1) and Rule 37.
   • The Court observed that the School Tribunal had meticulously examined the record and found the termination order illegal and perverse.

5. Victimization Allegations:

   • The Court noted that the respondent’s eligibility for promotion and the petitioner’s alleged motive to accommodate a relative were not refuted by the petitioners.

"None of the charges are substantiated and therefore learned tribunal, who perused the entire record, rightly interfered. How learned School Tribunal erred and what was the illegality or perversity, is not demonstrated."

The Verdict

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the School Tribunal’s order dated 29.01.2009. The Court permitted the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners, along with any accrued interest. The pending Civil Application No. 3185 of 2016 was also disposed of in light of the dismissal.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Termination Requires Substantiated Charges

• Employers must ensure that termination orders are based on proven misconduct and not mere allegations.
• Criminal acquittals or lack of evidence for charges render termination orders vulnerable to legal challenge.

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• Subsistence allowance must be granted during inquiry proceedings under Rule 36(1) of the MEPS Act.
• Inquiry committees must be constituted as per statutory rules; failure to do so vitiates the termination process.

Victimization and Ulterior Motives

• Courts are inclined to scrutinize termination orders where ulterior motives, such as favoritism or personal vendettas, are alleged.
• Employees can challenge termination orders by demonstrating procedural lapses or lack of evidence for charges.