1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal  Nos.5296-5297/2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23318-23319/2017)

Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & Ors.       Appellant(s)

                               Versus

Vidya (Dead) Thru Lrs. & Anr.                     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

These appeals arise from the impugned judgments and orders of the

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay  dated  16  December  2015  and  1

March 2017.

The dispute relates to the termination of the services of the original

respondent  (since  deceased)  after  a  disciplinary  enquiry.   The  original

respondent  was  engaged  as  a  Head  Mistress  by  the  third  appellant,

Anjanabai  Zode  Kanya  Vidyalaya,  Ashti  in  the  District  of  Wardha  in

Maharashtra.  A charge-sheet was issued to the employee on 15 January

1998  levelling  as  many  as  53  charges,  including  a  charge  of  mis-

appropriation.  An Enquiry Committee of three members was constituted

under  Rule  36  of  the  Maharashtra  Employees  of  Private  Schools

(Conditions of Service) Rules 19811.  Following the disciplinary enquiry, a

combined report  was submitted by the Enquiry  Committee on 29 June

1998.  One of the three members of the Committee expressed a dissenting

1 “1981 Rules”

2

view.  The services of the employee came to be terminated on 3 July 1998.

An  appeal  was  filed  before  the  School  Tribunal.   The  Tribunal,  by  its

decision dated 27 April 2005, rejected the appeal following which a writ

petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court.   

The sole ground which weighed with the High Court was that there

was nothing on record to show that  the three members of  the Enquiry

Committee had assembled and carried out deliberations before preparing

and submitting their respective reports.  Hence, there was a breach of Rule

37(6).   The  order  of  termination  was  set  aside.   However,  since  the

employee had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2009 and

had died on 26 September 2013, the management was directed to pay

50% of the arrears of salary for the period from 3 July 1998 until August

2009.  The claim of the respondents for family pension was denied.  A

review application filed by the appellants was dismissed on 1 March 2017.

Assailing the judgment of the High Court, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellants submits that the requirements of Rule 37(6) of

the 1981 Rules were duly fulfilled.  It was urged that the decision of this

Court  in  Vidya  Vikas  Mandal  v  the  Education  Officer2 is  clearly

distinguishable since, while construing the provisions of Rule 37(6) of the

1981 Rules, it was found that the findings by two members of the three

member  Committee  had  been submitted  after  the  period  prescribed  to

submit the report had expired.  This Court held, it was urged, that when a

Committee  of  three  members  is  appointed  to  enquire  into  a  particular

matter,  all  three  members  should  submit  a  combined  report,  whether

2  2007(2) SCALE 589

3

consenting or otherwise.  Hence, the decision is distinguishable.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants produced a compilation

of documents in support of the submission that the Enquiry Committee met

on several prior dates.  After a meeting on 14 June 1998, copies of the

findings were received on 18 June 1998.  On 29 June 1998, the Report,

which was compiled by the Convener, was read over before the Committee

and was approved with certain amendments.  Hence, it was urged that the

requirement of Rule 37(6) of the 1981 Rules has been fulfilled.

On  the  other  hand,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

respondents adverted to an affidavit which was filed by the third member of

the Committee before the Tribunal raising his objections to the procedure

which was followed by the Committee, in support of the submission that

the requirements of Rule 37(6) were not fulfilled.

From  the  record  which  has  been  produced  before  the  Court,  it

emerges that on 18 June 1998, the following minutes were recorded by the

Enquiry Committee:

“(2) Subject No.2 : Submission of findings of the Committee Members. Explanation: As resolved in the meeting dtd. 14-6-98, the copies of the findings of all the three members of the Committee are received.

(1) Shri A.S. Gavarshettiwar – Total Pages 5 of the copies of findings.

(2) Shri Mukteda Hasan – Total 10 pages of his findings

(3) Shri A.R. Zode – Total Pages  

The Members  of  the  Committee  has  taken  the  decision  that, instead of writing all  these findings in the Proceeding Book, it should be kept in the concerned file for reference and for having decided so, there is need to take its entry in it which is resolved by the Committee unanimously.”

Thereafter, it was agreed that:

4

“It  is unanimously resolved that,  the Convener should prepare the Compiled Report  and Decision from the findings received and by putting up it in the next meeting of the Inquiry Committee dtd.  29-6-98 and obtaining approval  of  the Committee to it,  it should be sent to the Management Committee.”

Subsequently, on 29 June 1998, the Enquiry Committee recorded the

following minutes:

“Subject No.(2): To  submit  the  Compiled  Report  as  per findings received from the Members of  the Inquiry  Committee and to obtain approval to it.

Details: The Compiled Report prepared by A.R. Zode, Convener of the above Inquiry Committee was put up and read over before the  Committee.   After  reading,  it  was  approved  with  some amendments.

Subject No.(3): To approve the Final Report of the above Inquiry  Committee  with  findings  and  Decisions  and recommendations therein.

Details: The Final Report prepared by Shri A.R.Zode, Convener of the above Inquiry Committee on the basis of the finding was read over with the Decisions and Recommendations before the Meeting.   Upon  it,  two  Members  of  the  Inquiry  Committee, namely,  Shri  A.R.Zode and Shri  Gavarshettiwar  have decided that Smt. V.D. Deshpande is guilty.  There is unanimity of these two Members in this regard.  As per Shri Mukteda Hasan, the decision  as  taken  is  not  proper  and  the  Head  Mistress  is guiltless.  However, as per the Final Report, findings, decision and recommendations of the Inquiry Committee it is passed with unanimity of the above two members of the Inquiry Committee. Subject No.4: Conducted and completed the proceeding of the Inquiry Committee as per the Rules.   Therefore,  this  was the Final Meeting.  It is unanimously resolved in this meeting that the further action which is to be taken henceforth under the Rules in the Maharashtra Employees of  Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1981 should be taken by the Convener.

As the proceeding in respect of the inquiry by the Inquiry Committee before the today’s Final Meeting is completed, the Convener of the Inquiry Committee has paid thanks too all the Members and as all the Members have given cooperation to the Inquiry  Committee  by  remaining  present  in  all  the  meetings within time, the Convener Shri A.R. Zode, by paying thanks to all the Members of the Inquiry Committee and all  the concerned, has declared that this Final Meeting is over.”

The Report of the Enquiry Committee dated 29 June 1998 was duly

signed  by  all  the  three  members.   Two  members  concluded  that  the

charges were duly proved.  The third member of the Enquiry Committee,

5

however, recorded his dissent while signing the Report.  It is evident that

the requirements of Rule 37(6) of the 1981 Rules were duly fulfilled.  Rule

37(6) of the Rules provides as follows:

“37(6). On receipt of such further explanation or if no explanation is offered within the aforesaid time the Inquiry Committee shall complete  the  inquiry  and  communicate  its  findings  on  the charges against the employee and its decision on the basis of these findings to the Management for specific action to be taken against the employee or the Head, as the case may be, within ten days after the date fixed for receipt of further explanation.  It shall  also  forward  a  copy  of  the  same  by  registered  post acknowledgment due to the employee or the Head, as the case may  be.   A copy  of  the  findings  and  decision  shall  also  be endorsed to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director, as the case  may  be,  by  registered  post  acknowledgment  due. Thereafter,  the  decision  of  the  Inquiry  Committee  shall  be implemented by the Management which shall  issue necessary orders within seven days from the date of receipt of decision of the Inquiry Committee, by registered post acknowledgment due. The Management shall also endorse a copy of its order to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director as the case may be.”

In the decision of this Court in  Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra), two of

the three members forming a part  of  the Committee had submitted the

report  beyond  the  time  period  stipulated,  while  only  one  member  had

submitted the report within the period prescribed.  This Court observed,

thus:

“9.  As  rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants, Rule 37 (6),  which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three members, as already noticed, only one member nominated by the Management has submitted his Inquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37 (6) and admittedly, the other two members  nominated  by  the  employee  and  an  independent member  have  not  submitted  their  report  within  the  time prescribed under Rule 37 (6).  However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, though noticed that the two members out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said  findings  by  the  two  members  of  the  committee  were submitted after  the expiry  of  the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). In our opinion, the report submitted by individual members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of three members are appointed to inquire into a particular matter, all  the  three  should  submit  their  combined  report  whether consenting or otherwise. Since the report is not in accordance with  the  mandatory  provisions,  the  Tribunal  and  the  learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court have

6

committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back wages...”

The  factual  position  in  Vidya  Vikas  Mandal  (supra)  is  clearly

distinguishable from the facts of the present case.  We have already noted

that the requirements of Rule 37(6) of the 1981 Rules were fulfilled.

For the above reasons, we are of the view that the basis on which the

High  Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  employee  was

misconceived.  The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are

accordingly set aside.   

The High Court has also observed, in the course of its judgment, that

the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  contesting  parties  had

made submissions on “various points”.  The High Court did not consider it

appropriate to deal with all the contentions on the basis that the decision of

this Court in  Vidya Vikas Mandal (supra) governs the case.  We would

have  ordinarily  remanded  the  proceedings  to  the  High  Court  for

considering  those  grounds  of  challenge.   However,  learned  counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated before the Court that an

order of remand, at this stage, would not serve the ends of justice since

the employee has died and the proceedings are being pursued by her legal

representatives.   Hence,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

respondents has submitted that it would be appropriate if the management

pays some ex gratia amount in full and final settlement.   

Learned counsel  appearing on behalf  of  the appellants has stated

that the retiral dues of the deceased employee of approximately Rupees

eight  lakhs  were  duly  paid  and  she  was  gainfully  employed  after  her

7

termination.   Be  that  as  it  may,  it  has  been stated  that  an  amount  of

Rupees one lakh fifty thousand shall be paid to the respondents purely as

an ex gratia payment on humanitarian grounds in full and final settlement.

Acceding  to  the  request,  we  close  the  proceedings  in  the  above

terms.   The aforesaid payment shall  be made over  to  the respondents

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this order.  

The appeals are accordingly disposed of.  There shall be no order as

to costs.

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Indira Banerjee]

 New Delhi;  July 09, 2019

8

ITEM NO.9               COURT NO.11               SECTION III

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).5296-5297/2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23318-23319/2017)

SHRI YOGIRAJ SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL & ORS.       Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

VIDYA (DEAD) THRU LRs & Anr.                        Respondent(s)

(WITH IA No.79472/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED  JUDGMENT)   Date : 09-07-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

For Appellant(s) Mr. Manish Kumar Gupta, Adv.                   Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Pratik R. Bombarde, AOR

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv.                      

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed

reportable  judgment.   There  shall  be  no  order  as  to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)