Bombay High Court
THE SECRETARY SAFA EDUCATION SOCIETY VAJIRABAD AND ANOTHERversusSAYYADA SEEMA KAUSAR MIR SADAT ALI AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order for a de novo inquiry and refusing to impose subsistence allowance liability on the petitioner.
Summary
The petition challenged a School Tribunal order that set aside the termination of a headmistress accused of misappropriating funds and directed a de novo inquiry due to procedural defects. The Tribunal found violations of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, including denial of a second representative, improper witness handling, and lack of notice of the final report. It also ordered the petitioner (the school society) to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent during the suspension. The High Court examined whether it should interfere under Article 227 and whether the Tribunal’s directions were lawful. Finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments and noting the Tribunal’s proper application of natural justice, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the de novo inquiry and rejecting the liability for subsistence allowance.
Issues considered
- Whether the School Tribunal erred in setting aside the termination order and directing a de novo inquiry on the ground of violations of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981.
- Whether the petitioner is liable to pay subsistence allowance to the respondent during the period of suspension and enquiry.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the Tribunal's order.
Legislation cited
- M.E.P.S. Act — s. 9
- M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981 — s. 36, 37
Subjects
- school tribunal
- termination of service
- misappropriation
- procedural fairness
- de novo inquiry
- subsistence allowance
- Article 227
- natural justice
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:1195
(1) wp-167-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.167 OF 2026
1. The Secretary,
Safa Education Society, Vajirabad,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. The Head Master,
Safa Urdu Primary School, Tahuara Bag,
Vajirabad, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Sayyada Seema Kausar d/o Mir Sadat Ali,
Age: 45 Years, Occ.: Service,
r/o. Indamdar Galli, Killa Road,
Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.
2. The Education Officer (Primary)
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ..Respondents
…
Mr. Ganesh A. Gadhe, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent-State.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 08th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated
22.08.2025 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur in
Appeal No.11/2024, whereby Appeal filed by respondent no.1 under
Section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act has been partly allowed, thereby setting
aside otherwise termination and remitting matter back for denovo
inquiry as per M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and Rules of 1981 from stage of
constitution of Enquiry Committee.
(2) wp-167-2026.odt
3. Mr. Gadhe, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners
submits that respondent no.1 was appointed as Assistant Teacher
on probation. Thereafter, she was appointed as Headmistress. She
illegally diverted amount of Rs.1,76,433/- from salary account to
her own benefit and some amount from school account without
authorization. Eventually, she was suspended and FIR was lodged.
She was served with show cause notice for charges of
misappropriation, negligence and misconduct. With approval of
Education Officer, she was suspended w.e.f. 02.01.2024. On
26.03.2024, she was served with charge-sheet. The enquiry was
conducted, wherein she was found guilty for charges. Accordingly,
she was terminated from service w.e.f. 22.05.2024.
4. The respondent no.1 approached School Tribunal in Appeal
No.11/2024 under Section 9 of M.E.P.S. Act. The petitioner filed
written statement and supported legality of enquiry and
termination order. However, School Tribunal partly allowed
Appeal observing that enquiry was not fair and proper. The
Tribunal has further directed petitioner to pay subsistence
allowance from date of reinstatment for enquiry till completion of
enquiry. According to Mr. Gadhe, aforesaid directions are
unnecessary, particularly when suspension of respondent no.1 was
preceded by approval from Education Officer.
(3) wp-167-2026.odt
5. Perusal of order of Tribunal shows that Tribunal has
elaborately observed fundamental defects in enquiry, particularly
violation of Rules 36 and 37 of M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981. The Tribunal
observed that respondent no.1 was not permitted to nominate
second representative while her earlier nominated representative
was not willing to continue proceeding. Although list of 9
witnesses was given for examination on behalf of Management, 14
witnesses were examined. The statements of witnesses were not
supplied to appellant for cross-examination, but report mentions
that respondent no.1 refused to cross-examine witnesses. Although
President was conveyor, she is examined herself as witness of
Management. Similarly, Secretary himself was Presiding Officer
and examined himself as witness of Management. There is
discrepancy as to number of meetings held during course of
enquiry. The respondent no.1 was not served with notice of final
report. The Tribunal observed that aforesaid defects vitiates
enquiry being defiance of Rules 36 and 37 of M.E.P.S. Rules.
6. In this background, Tribunal thought it fit to direct denovo
inquiry as per law and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal
has further observed that looking to nature of charges, Secretary of
Management, who is holding charge of Headmaster cannot be
permitted to act as Presiding Officer on behalf of Management,
particularly when he was also accused of misappropriation of
(4) wp-167-2026.odt
amount and he was served with show cause notice by appellant to
deposit amount, so also acting as witness against appellant. This
Court do not find any reason to interfere in directions given by
Tribunal, thereby setting aside termination order and directing
denovo inquiry.
7. Second wing of argument on behalf of petitioner is that
School Tribunal erroneously issued directions imposing liability to
pay subsistence allowance on shoulder of petitioner, although
school is receiving 100% grant-in-aid.
8. Perusal of order of Tribunal would depict that aforesaid
directions are well founded, supported by reasons recorded in
paragraph no.56 of impugned judgment of School Tribunal. The
Tribunal recorded that directions for denovo inquiry required to be
given because of defects in conduct of enquiry on part of
Management. The Management is under obligation to pay
subsistence allowance. If enquiry after suspension of employee is
prolonged for any reason, Education Officer/State cannot be
burdened with financial liability.
9. In present case, it is apparent that because of fault on part of
Management directions for denovo inquiry are required to be given.
The respondent no.1 is continued under suspension during period
of enquiry. It is for Management to conduct enquiry without
(5) wp-167-2026.odt
further delay. The liability to pay subsistence allowance is only for
period of joining of petitioner to enquiry till its conclusion.
10. In this background, this Court do not find any reason to
invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution
of India. In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
11. Rules stands discharged.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
Checking your session…