1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.9161 OF 2017         (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.12747/2017)

Shubham Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Waddhamana & Anr.    ...Appellant(s)           

VERSUS

Shri Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Daigavhane & Ors.       ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  16.03.2017  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  Nagpur  Bench,

Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2015 whereby

the High Court set aside the judgment and order of

the  School  Tribunal,  Nagpur,  cancelled  the

termination order of respondent No.1 and permitted

him (writ petitioner) to withdraw his writ petition.

2

3) In  order  to  appreciate  the  short  controversy

involved  in  this  appeal,  the  relevant  facts  need

mention in brief infra.

4) There  is  a  Trust  called  “Shubham

Bahuuddeshiya  Sanstha,  Waddhamana,

Nagpur-23”.  It is registered under the provisions of

the  Bombay  Public  Trust  Act,  1950  (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”). The Trust is running one

school  by  and  under  the  name  of  “Swami

Vivekanand High School" at "Waddhamana" in Tah.

Hingna,  District  Nagpur,  Maharashtra.  The affairs

of  the school  is  managed and looked after by the

Managing Committee of the Trust.  Respondent No.

1 was working as Assistant Teacher in this school.

5) On 26.06.2003, Respondent No. 1 was served

with charge-sheet as per the procedure prescribed

under  Maharashtra  Employees  of  Private  Schools

(Conditions  of  Service)  Regulation  Act  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “MEPS  Rules”).  The  charge-sheet

contained as many as 17 charges levelled against

3

Respondent  No.  1  which  he  is  alleged  to  have

committed in discharge of  his  duties  as Assistant

Teacher. It is not necessary to set out the details of

the charges here except to mention that perusal of

the  charges would reveal  that  most  of  them were

quite serious in nature.

6) The Managing Committee of  the  School  then

appointed Three-Member Inquiry Committee to hold

an  inquiry  into  the  charges  levelled  against

respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the MEPS

Rules and submit the report. Respondent No.1, felt

aggrieved of this action of the School Management,

filed a civil suit and sought stay of the proceedings

initiated against him.  The matter eventually went to

the High Court at the instance of the respondent in

writ petition (W.P. No. 892/2004) wherein the High

Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent

of  the  parties  by  order  dated  22.11.2005  and

directed  the  Inquiry  Committee  to  conclude  the

4

inquiry within 4 months strictly in accordance with

the provisions of the MEPS Rules.  

7) The Inquiry  Committee  then held  an inquiry

wherein  respondent  No.  1  appeared  and

participated  through  his  representative-one  Mr.

Keshavarao Dahake.  He filed his reply and denied

the charges levelled against him. Both parties, i.e.,

the appellant (School Management) and respondent

No.1, filed documents and examined the witnesses

in  support  of  their  case.   The  Inquiry  Committee

held several sittings.

8) The  Inquiry  Committee  on  20.03.2006

submitted  the  report,  which  runs  into  43  pages

(Annexure-P-3).  The  Committee  (by  majority)  held

all the 17 charges proved against respondent No. 1.

The School Management concurred with the report

and keeping in view the gravity of the charges which

stood proved, terminated the services of respondent

No.1 by order dated 01.02.2010 (Annexure-P-5 ).

5

9) Respondent  No.  1,  felt  aggrieved  of  his

termination  order,  filed  appeal  being  Appeal  No.

STN10/2010 before the School Tribunal at Nagpur

as provided in the Rules. The School Management

(Employer) on being noticed of the appeal filed reply

and defended the  termination order  including  the

inquiry  report.  By  order  dated  30.01.2015

(Annexure-P-6)  the  School  Tribunal  dismissed the

appeal and upheld the termination order holding it

legal and proper.  

10) Respondent No. 1, felt aggrieved of the order of

the  School  Tribunal,  filed  writ  petition  (W.P.No.

1958 of 2015) out of which this appeal arises before

the High Court.   

11) It  appears  from  the  record  that  during  the

pendency of the writ petition, the disputes started

inter se Members of the Management Committee of

the Trust resulting in emerging of two rival groups

in the Management of the school.

6

12) One  group  of  the  Committee,  who  are

prosecuting this appeal, supported the termination

order of respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal

and the High Court in the writ petition and wanted

the termination to be upheld whereas the other rival

group was opposing the termination order and was

keen to settle the matter with respondent No.1 by

withdrawing his termination order and reinstating

him  in  service.  This  rival  group  of  Committee

Members, therefore, filed intervention application in

the writ  petition and made a statement that  they

have resolved to reinstate respondent No. 1 and are

also ready to cancel his termination. The intervener

also  stated  that  having  regard  to  the  fact  that

respondent  No.  1  was  in  school  since  long  and

secondly, some charges have also not been proved

against him, particularly the charge in relation to

mass  copying,  the  Management  Committee  has

resolved to withdraw his termination and  reinstate

respondent  No.1  in  service  of  the  school.   It  was

7

opposed  by  other  group  who  was  supporting  the

termination,  i.e.,  the  group  which  has  filed  this

appeal.

13) The  writ  Court  accepted  the  aforementioned

statement of  the intervener and on that basis set

aside  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  impugned  by

respondent  No.  1  in  his  writ  petition  and  at  the

same  time  also  allowed  respondent  No.1  to

withdraw  his  writ  petition.  This  is  how  the  writ

Court (single Judge) dealt with the issue in para 8 of

the impugned order.

“8.   As  referred  to  above,  in  the  peculiar circumstances,  when  the  management  is ready  to  reinstate  the  petitioner  and  to cancel the termination order on the backdrop of the facts that the petitioner is served in the  institute  for  more  than  16  years.   In addition,  the  charge  leveled  against  the petitioner  of  his  involvement in  mass  copy was  not  supported  by  any  material  in  the investigation carried out by the investigation agency and the investigation agency sought discharge of the petitioner from the criminal charges  leveled  against  the  petitioner.   In this situation, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw  the  petition  in  view  of  the resolution  passed  by  the  management committee  dated  15.1.2017.   On  the backdrop  of  the  resolution  passed  by  the management dated 15.1.2017, the judgment and  order  passed  by  the  learned  Presiding

8

Officer,  School  Tribunal  is  quashed and set aside.”  

      14) It  is  this  order,  which  is  impugned  in  this

appeal by one group, who had been defending the

termination of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal

and the High Court and opposing the prayers made

by the intervener in the writ petition which found

acceptance to the writ Court resulting in passing of

the impugned order.  

15) It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  effect  of  the

impugned order is that firstly, the order of Tribunal

dated  30.01.2015  stands  set  aside;  secondly,  the

termination order dated 01.02.2010 of  respondent

No.1 also stands set aside; and thirdly, respondent

No.1 stands reinstated in services of the School. It is

stated at the bar that respondent No. 1 has since

been reinstated in service and now serving.

16) Heard  Ms.  Meenakshi  Arora,  learned  senior

counsel  for  the  appellant,  Mr.  R.  Basant,  learned

senior counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kishor

Lambat, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9

17) Having heard learned counsel  for  the parties

and on perusal  of  the  record of  the  case,  we are

inclined to allow the appeal in part and while setting

aside the impugned order restore the writ petition

filed  by  respondent  No.  1  to  its  original  file  and

request the High Court to decide the writ petition on

merits in accordance with law.

18) In our considered view, the question before the

High  Court  (writ  court)  was  only  one,  namely,

whether  the  order  passed by  the  School  Tribunal

dated 30.01.2015, which upheld the Inquiry Report

and, in consequence, the termination of respondent

No.1, is legal or not?  It is this question, which the

High  Court  had  to  answer  on  its  merits  in

accordance with law, one way or the other.

19) The  disputes  which  had  surfaced  in  the

meantime between two rival groups of Management

Committee in regard to managing the affairs of the

School  wherein  one  group  was  supporting

respondent No.1’s  termination and the other group

10

opposing  the  termination  should  not  have  been

taken note of much less relied on by the Writ Court

for disposal of the writ petition nor these facts, in

our  view,  could  be  made  subject  matter  of  writ

petition filed by respondent No.1-they being wholly

irrelevant  for  deciding  the  lis involved in  the  writ

petition.  

20) Had  there  been  unanimity  between  the

Members of the Managing Committee of the School

resolving to settle  the issue with respondent No.1

amicably  on  terms  agreed  upon  then  perhaps,

compromise  between respondent  No.1  on  the  one

hand and the Management of School on the other

would have been permissible subject to obtaining of

any sanction from the authorities, if provided under

the Rules for giving effect to it.

21) However,  such  was  not  the  case.  Here,  as

mentioned supra, appears to be a case where there

is  a  split  between  the  Members  of  the  Managing

Committee  -  one  group  saying  that  we  should

11

compromise  with  respondent  No.1  and  the  other

group saying that we should not compromise with

respondent No.1.

22)  In such situation, the High Court should not

have accepted the stand of one group and should

have  proceeded  to  decide  the  writ  petition  on  its

merits  regardless  of  any  internal  differences

between the Management Committee Members with

a view to find out as to whether the order of  the

Tribunal  impugned  by  respondent  No.1  (writ

petitioner) is legally sustainable or not?  

23) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered

view  that  we  cannot  concur  with  the  manner,

reasoning  and  the  conclusion  of  the  High  Court,

which on the one hand allowed respondent No.1 to

withdraw his writ  petition and on the other hand

proceeded  to  set  aside  the  order  of  the  School

Tribunal  without  examining  its  legality  and

correctness  on  merits  and  at  the  same  time

proceeded to set aside the termination order also by

12

accepting  the  statement  of  one  group  of

Management.  

24) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

succeeds  and  is  allowed.  Impugned  order  is  set

aside and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1

is revived for being heard on merits in accordance

with law.  

25) We, however,  consider it  apposite  to make it

clear that the writ Court would only decide the main

question which is involved in the writ petition as to

whether the order passed by the School  Tribunal,

which  is  impugned  by  the  writ  petitioner

(respondent  No.1)  is  legally  sustainable  or  not?

Depending upon the outcome of  the writ  petition,

consequential  orders  would  be  passed.  We  also

make it clear that the writ Court would consider the

Management  (employer)  to  be  the  contesting

respondent who would be supporting the order of

the Tribunal and opposing the writ petition. We also

make it clear that the writ Court would not probe

13

into  any  internal  issues  arising  between  these

warring  groups  of  Managing  Committee  of  the

School  nor  they  would  be  allowed  to  take

inconsistent stand qua the writ petitioner except the

one mentioned above.  We also make it clear that we

have  not  gone  into  the  merits  of  the  controversy

which is subject-matter of  writ petition before the

High Court and hence writ court would decide the

writ  petition  strictly  in  accordance  with  law  on

merits  uninfluenced by  any observations made in

this order.

26)   During  the  pendency  of  the  writ  petition,

respondent No. 1 will not be allowed to work (if he is

already reinstated pursuant to the impugned order).

In  other  words,  so  long  as  the  termination  order

remains and not set aside by the competent Court,

respondent No. 1 would remain out of employment

of  the  appellant  -  Trust-School.   We  also  grant

liberty to the Members of Managing Committee (two

rival groups) to settle their internal disputes, if any,

14

in appropriate forum in accordance with law and in

doing so, this order would not, in any manner, come

in their way.

27) We  request  the  writ  Court  to  ensure  early

disposal  of  the  writ  petition  preferably  within  6

months as an outer limit.

               ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

           …...……..................................J.        [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi; July 17, 2017