VEENA V. PATHAREversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SECRETARY BOMBAY THIRUVALLVARMANRAM AND ORS,.

                                                                  301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5279 OF 2008

NAVNATH               Veena V. Pathare                              )
SITARAM               Age about 43 years,                           )
WAGHMARE
Digitally signed by
                      Occu: At present Household,                   )
NAVNATH SITARAM
WAGHMARE              171/27, Raju Kamathi Chal,                    )
Date: 2026.10.06
20:24:51 +0530
                      Ghodapdeo Road, Mumbai- 400033.               ) ...Petitioner
                                  Versus
                      1. Chief Executive Officer/Secretary,         )
                      Bombay Thiruvallvarmanram,                    )
                      Village Road, Bhandup, Mumbai- 400078.        )
                                                                    )
                      2. Principal                                  )
                      (Mr. R. Yesuraj Samuel)                       )
                      Bombay Thiruvallvarmanram's,                  )
                      Bright High School & Junior                   )
                      College, (secondary section),                 )
                      Village Road, Bandup, Mumbai- 400078.         )
                                                                    )
                      3.Shri Jagdishan, Conveyor,                   )
                      Veena Pathare enquiry committee,              )
                      Bombay Thiruvallvarmanram, Village Road,      )
                      Bhandup, Mumbai- 400078.                      )
                                                                    )
                      4. Education Inspector, Greater Mumbai,       )
                      North zone, Chembur, Mumbai.                  )
                                                                    )
                      5. Education Officer,                         )
                      Bruhanmumbai Mahanagarpalika,                 )
                      Education department, Hindu Colony,           )
                      Dadar, Mumbai.                                ) ...Respondents

                                                      WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 21943 OF 2023



                      Navnath Waghmare                                                    1
                                                301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



Veena V. Pathre                               )
Age : about 57 Years                          )
Occ: At present Household Residing at 171/27, )
Raju Kamathi Chawl Ghodapdeo Road, Mumbai- )
400 033.                                      )
Presently residing at C/o. Vikas Pathre,      )
3D, 2006, New Hind Mill Transit Compound,     )
20th Floor, R.B. Marg, Ghodapdeo,             )
Mumbai- 400 033.                              ) ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN                          )
Veena V. Pathre                                ) ... Petitioner
            Versus
Chief Executive Officer/Secretary & Ors.       ) ...Respondents
                                  ****
Mr. Kishor Patil a/w Ms. Akshada Nagrale & Mr. Anish Kikle i/b Mr.
Nilesh Mandavkar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rahul R. Tiwari for Respondent No.1.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for the Respondent/State.
                                  ****
                          CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                            DATE : 06th OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :

1.          Invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
Petitioner is challenging order dated 29.01.2008 passed by Presiding
Officer School Tribunal Mumbai Region, at Mumbai ('the Tribunal' for
short) in Appeal No. MUM/53/2005. By the said impugned order, the
Petitioner's appeal is dismissed. The said appeal was filed challenging
the order of termination dated 27.09.2003, by which the Petitioner's
service was terminated with immediate effect.

2.          In this judgment, the Maharashtra Employees of Private
School (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981
are hereinafter referred to as ('the said Act' and ‘the said Rules’ for
short).

Navnath Waghmare                                                        2
                                                   301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



                                     BACKGROUND

3.            The Petitioner filed the said appeal contending inter alia as
follows. That Respondent No.1 is the Secretary of the Educational
Institute and Respondent No.2 is the Principal of Bright High School &
Junior College, which is linguistic minority institution. That school is
unaided but recognised by the education department. That Petitioner
was working in the said school as Clerk-cum-Translator since
03.08.1992. That there were no complaints against her regarding her
work and conduct. That when she complained about sexual abuse by
Respondent No.2-Principal, the Management started harassing her by
issuing false memos and show cause notices. That the Management
made illegal appointment of one Mr. Dominic Xavier as in-charge officer
from 01.01.2003, who also misbehaved with her. That she filed police
complaint on 21.02.2003. That the Management held inquiry against
Petitioner without following due procedure and in absence of evidence
and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. That without the
charges being proved, the inquiry committee by majority recommended
major penalty. That Consequently, termination order was issued, which
is illegal.

4.            The Respondent-Management appeared and filed written
statement contending inter alia as follows. That the Petitioner's work
and performance was not satisfactory. That many complaints regarding
misbehavior, misconduct, negligence in duties and absentism were
received. That several memos were issued to the Petitioner from time to
time. That statement of allegation was served upon her and her
explanation was found unsatisfactory. That therefore the Management
resolved to hold inquiry. That chargesheet was issued. That three



Navnath Waghmare                                                           3
                                                  301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



members’ inquiry committee was constituted as per the said Rules. That
the Petitioner’s nominee was included in the inquiry committee. That
fair and full opportunity was given to the Petitioner to defend herself.

5.          The Tribunal who heard and tried the said appeal was pleased
to dismiss it under impugned order dated 29.01.2008.

6.          In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed the petition which
was admitted on 05.02.2009. No interim relief was granted.

7.          During pendency of the petition, the Petitioner filed above
interim application placing on record the Order passed by Metropolitan
Magistrate 53rd Court Mulund, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 20/S/2003
dated 06.08.2016, by which, the Petitioner is acquitted from the offence
punishable under Section 499, 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 ('IPC' for short). The same is being considered below.

                                    SUBMISSIONS

8.           Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that procedure
contemplated under the said rules was not followed and and there are
admitted lapses in the procedure adopted by the Management. That
Rule 33(1) and 35(1) of the said Rules are breached as there is no
approval. That there is no Management resolution supporting
suspension. That the Management resolution is back-dated. That pre-
inquiry, provided under Rule 36 is not conducted in case of major
penalty. That main witness Mr. Dominic Xavier has not been examined
for which no sufficient explanation is given. That the Petitioner was not
permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. That the convener has to
forward copies to the employee to which employer has right to respond,
as provided under Rule 37(4 & 5), which is not followed. That from


Navnath Waghmare                                                          4
                                                  301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



1992 till 2002, the Petitioner had clear and unblemish record and she is
also acquitted of the criminal charges involving the same allegations.
That in 2024, the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation
however, the Petitioner has not worked anywhere from 2003 till today,
thereby suffering from financial losses.      That the Tribunal has not
considered whether rules are properly followed or not. That the
Management ought to be directed to pay compensation to the Petitioner.

9.          On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-
Management submitted that Petitioner's conduct was not good and the
management has followed proper procedure as provided under the said
Rules, giving full and fair opportunity to the Petitioner. That the
impugned order itself records that witnesses were cross examined on
behalf of the Petitioner. That no real prejudice is shown to have been
suffered by the Petitioner. That the impugned order is passed on
appreciation of evidence taking probable view and therefore there is no
perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition be dismissed.

10.         Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the education authorities
has supported the impugned order.

                            REASONS AND CONCLUSION

11.         At the outset, it is necessary to note that in cases like this,
what is important to be seen is whether the delinquent has suffered
material and real prejudice. During the inquiry proceedings, minor
irregularities in the procedure will not vitiate the entire inquiry
proceedings and outcome, unless real prejudice is shown to have
occurred.

12.         In Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee Management of MM


Navnath Waghmare                                                          5
                                                 301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



Degree College and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 281, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering a case of termination and prejudice caused to the
delinquent, held that 'it is only a person who is ready and willing to
avail the opportunity given, who can make a grievance about denial of
any opportunity and not a person who despite repeated opportunities
given and indulgence shown, exhibits defiance and total indifference to
cooperation.'

        In the present case, it has come on record that the Petitioner has
chosen not to lead any evidence. If that be so, then Petitioner has not
taken available opportunity.

13.         It has come on record that the Petitioner raised objection to
the nominee appointed by the Management and therefore to avoid
difficulties, the Management replaced its nominee with another person
and thereafter the inquiry committee proceeded

14.         The Tribunal has held that the Petitioner and her nominee
have attended all meetings and participated in the proceedings and the
tribunal has also found that Petitioner was given fair and proper
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The copies of the minutes
of inquiry, meetings, report and summary of inquiry proceedings are
supplied to the Petitioner. The Tribunal clearly recorded finding that
sufficient opportunities was given to Petitioner to defend herself and
principles of natural justice are followed.

15.         So far as the argument about non-examination of Mr. Dominic
Xavier is concerned, the Tribual on appreciation of evidence has found
that after the assault and threat of dire consequences given by the
Petitioner, said Mr Xavier left Mumbai and settled elsewhere and was



Navnath Waghmare                                                         6
                                                   301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



therefore not available to appear before the inquiry committee at
relevant time. This explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal. It is
seen from record that many other witnesses were examined, including
the Principal, CEO, and other employees of the school and they all were
cross-examined.

16.         So far as the order of acquittal is concerned, it is important to
note that acquittal is from the offence punishable under section 499,
500 and 506 of IPC, which is defamation and criminal intimidation.
However, the inquiry committee has considered following charges
against the Petitioner.

17.         There are in all nine charges against the Petitioner. Charge
No.1 is regarding negligence in discharging duty about collecting
examination fee and tuition fees. Charge No.2 is regarding absentism
without prior permission. Charge No. 3 is collecting amount of Rs.
7700/- from students without permission of the School authorities and
embezzlement thereof. Charge No. 4 is about making false allegation of
sexual     abuse   against   the   Principal.   Charge    No.       5    is       about
insubordination. Charge No. 6 is about threatening and blackmailing
the superiors and members of the Management. Charge No. 7 is in
respect of giving threats of dire consequences to colleagues and
superiors. Charge No.8 is about willful negligence in not forwarding
examination forms and Charge No. 9 is regarding physical assault upon
Mr. Dominic Xavier on 21st February 2003.

18.         Hence, it is clear that the nature of charges which were
considered by the inquiry committee against Petitioner (which is subject
matter of this petition) were many more than defamation and criminal
intimidation. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the


Navnath Waghmare                                                           7
                                                    301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



acquittal from the criminal case will have any material bearing on the
impugned order.

19.         So far as the argument about the management resolution
being back-dated is concerned, it is seen from the documents produced
on record that the order of suspension is dated 21.02.2003 and extract
of resolution dated 21.02.2003 is printed on 25.02.2003. Merely
because the extract is printed 4 days later will not make the resolution
back-dated.

20.         So far as the argument that ‘the Petitioner was not permitted
to cross-examine is concerned, perusal of the copy of the inquiry report
indicates that the Petitioner has participated in the inquiry committee
meeting and has asked questions to witnesses. Therefore, there is no
merit in the said argument and sufficient compliance with Rule 37 is
seen. Even the Tribunal has categorically held that the Petitioner has
cross-examined the witnesses. Nothing was shown to the Court from the
record to come to a positive conclusion that the Petitioner was not
permitted to cross-examine.

21.         It appears from the impugned order that specific argument
based on Rule 33(1) and 35(1), about prior permission of the
concerned authority, was not advanced and it is being argued for the
first time in writ petition. Even the appeal memo filed in the Tribunal
does not indicate any specific ground raised based on alleged breach of
Rule    33(1)      and   35(1).   Therefore,   obviously,    the      Respondent-
Management did not have an occasion to meet the said contention.
Considering the inquiry committee's report and further considering the
fact that sufficient opportunity has been given to the Petitioner to
defend her case, the said irregularity will not vitiate the inquiry


Navnath Waghmare                                                            8
                                                  301-WP- 5279-2008 (J) C2.doc



proceedings or its outcome.

22.         In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, there is no perversity in the impugned order. The view
taken by the Tribunal is the most probable view. Re-appreciation of
evidence (for coming to contrary conclusion) is not possible. There is no
reason to interfere.

23.         Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs. In view of disposal of writ petition, pending interim
application is also disposed of.

24.         All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.




                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                          9