THE SECRETARY, VIDYA PRASARAK SANSTHA and ANR.versusARVIND RAMCHANDRA BHALERAO AND ORS.

                                                                        901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 7972 OF 2003

                   1. The Secretary,
                   Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Balkum, Thane

                   2. The Head Master
                   Vidya Prasarak Sanstha Vidyalay Balkum, Thane             ...Petitioners

                               Versus
                   1. Shri. Arvind Ramchandra Bhalerao
SNEHA              R/o Viratdham Co-operative Society Ltd.
NITIN              Block No. 16, 3rd Floor, Swami Vivekanand
CHAVAN
                   Nagar, Near A.V.M. Kulgaon, Badlapur, District
Digitally signed
by SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN             Thane.
Date: 2026.09.03
20:36:07 +0530

                   2.The Education Officer (Secondary)
                   Zilla Parishad, Thane

                   3. The Presiding Officer,
                   Addl. School Tribunal,
                   New Mumbai                                                ...Respondents

                                                   ****
                   Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale a/w Mr. Pandurang Andhale for the Petitioner.
                   Shri. Arvind Ramchandra Bhalerao – Respondent No. 1 present in
                   person.
                   Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent/State.
                                                   ****
                                           CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                             DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

                   ORAL JUDGMENT :

                   1.             Invoking Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
                   Petitioners (Educational Institute and School) are challenging the order
                   dated 07.10.2003 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional School
                   Tribunal, Navi Mumbai in Appeal No. 58 of 2002, allowing appeal filed
                   by Respondent No. 1, thereby setting aside the termination order dated


                   Sneha Chavan                                                                 1
                                                  901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



10.07.2002 and directing the Petitioners to reinstate Respondent No. 1
on the post of Headmaster with continuity of service and all
consequential benefits. The Petitioners are also directed to pay full back
wages to Respondent No. 1 from the date of termination till date of
reinstatement.

2.             Hereinafter in this judgment, The Maharashtra Employees of
Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 is referred
to as ‘the said Act’ for short and Rules of 1981 made thereunder, are
referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short.

                                 BRIEF BACKGROUND

3.             The Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher
on 15.06.1981. He was promoted to the post of Headmaster on
14.06.1998 and was working as such. The Education Officer (Zilla
Parishad, Thane) issued a letter dated 08.03.2002 to the Petitioner-
Management informing that it is found that for 3 Academic years, some
divisions of various standards have been conducted without informing
the reduction in student strength and by running bogus divisions
resulting into loss of the government to the tune of Rs.8,64,000/-. It
was directed that such expense be recovered from concerned teachers,
Headmaster and clerk.

4.             The Petitioner-Management took decision to hold an inquiry
against Respondent No. 1 in respect of the alleged illegal activities.
Legal notice was issued to Respondent No. 1. Inquiry committee was
constituted and charges were communicated. Respondent No. 1 was
called upon to nominate his representative, which he nominated.
Thereafter, the committee conducted inquiry and by final report, the
Respondent No. 1 was found guilty of the charges. On 10.07.2002,


Sneha Chavan                                                              2
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



Respondent No.1 was terminated.

5.             The Respondent No. 1 filed the said appeal before the
Tribunal, contending inter alia that the inquiry committee is not
properly constituted; that no charge sheet is prepared and served along
with documents; that the procedure under Rule 37 of the said Rules is
not followed; that the punishment is predetermined; that no reasons are
stated in resolution about imposing major penalty of termination; that
during the course of inquiry, no witness is examined; that inquiry
committee has not given its opinion about the guilt of the Respondent
No. 1.

6.             The Petitioners filed their written statement contending inter
alia that the allegations made against Respondent No. 1 about students
strength is found to be correct; that memo of allegation is issued along
with show cause notice for the purpose of suspension; that objections
regarding formation of the inquiry committee are denied. It was
contended that six meetings were conducted by the inquiry committee,
however, Respondent No. 1 did not co-operate and defend his case and
his nominee was present only in two meetings. That sufficient
opportunity was given to the Respondent No. 1 to appear before the
inquiry committee and explain/defend his case. That by a specific
delegation, the Vice President was empowered to conduct the inquiry.
That procedure under Rule 37 of the said Rules, is followed. Allegation
about predetermination of guilt is denied. It was contended that
Respondent No. 1 by his own act of not appearing before the committee
waived right of cross examining witnesses and therefore he cannot be
permitted to contend that there is breach of principles of natural justice.
That notice of all the meetings were given to the Respondent No. 1 and
his nominee, which were duly received by them. That Respondent No. 1


Sneha Chavan                                                                 3
                                                              901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



was non-cooperative since beginning.

7.             After hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence, the
Tribunal has passed the impugned order.

8.             In these circumstances, the Petitioners have challenged the
impugned order. This Court after hearing both sides including
Respondent No. 1 (party in person) admitted the petition and interim
arrangement was recorded by consent of both sides. The said order
reads as follows.

               “CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE,J.
               DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2003
               PC:
               1. Heard Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioners, the
               learned A.G.P. for respondent-State and respondent no.1 in-
               person.
               2. Rule. Returnable early.
               3. The petitioners and respondents agreed for the following interim
               relief pending this writ petition for final disposal.
               i) Respondent no.1 will be allowed to work as an Assistant Teacher
               in Vidya Prasarak Sanstha's Vidyalaya, Balkum, Thane, till the
               disposal of this writ petition. He shall not claim any equities.
               ii) Respondent no.2 is directed to sanction and release the salary
               of the Assistant Teacher to be paid to respondent no.1 from the
               date of his reporting on duty as and by way of provisional
               arrangement pending disposal of this petition.
               iii) There shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b),
               subject to clauses (i) and (ii) aforestated,
               Prayer clause (b) reads thus:
                  "Pending the final hearing and disposal of the present petition,
               this   Hon'ble    Court    be    pleased    to     stay      the       operation,


Sneha Chavan                                                                          4
                                                           901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



               implementation and execution of the Judgment and order dated
               7.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Addl. School
               Tribunal in Appeal No. 58/2002.”
                  It is open for the institution to pursue the recovery proceedings
               as directed by the Education Officer in accordance with law.
               Needless to say that the aforesaid interim arrangement is subject
               to result of this petition.
                  Parties to act an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated
               by the Personal Secretary of this Court.”



9.             It is not disputed that pursuant to above interim order, the
Respondent No. 1 continued to work and draw salary as assistant
teacher (with deductions) and has retired on 31.10.2013 and he is also
drawing pension.

                                             SUBMISSIONS

10.            Learned Counsel Mr. Jagdale, appearing for the Petitioner-
Management submitted as under.

10.1. That the charges are serious inasmuch as correct information
about student strength and permissible divisions was suppressed which
has resulted in concerned education officer issuing specific direction
under letter dated 08.03.2002.

10.2. That since the Management decided to initiate action imposing
major penalty of termination, inquiry committee was duly constituted
following applicable Rules.

10.3. That no reply was filed. That if the proceedings of the inquiry
committee are perused, then it is more than clear that representative
appeared only twice and the Respondent No.1 only appeared once
before the inquiry committee but did not co-operate and walked out.

Sneha Chavan                                                                       5
                                                   901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



Finally report was submitted holding him guilty.

10.4. That a delinquent employee who chooses not to co-operate with
the inquiry committee cannot turn around and make a grievance about
principles of natural justice not being followed. He submitted that since
Respondent No. 1 has chosen not to co-operate before the inquiry
committee, he cannot contend that opportunity was not given.

10.5. That the Tribunal has allowed the Appeal on technical grounds as
listed in paragraph 13 of the impugned order; however, unless the
Respondent No. 1 proved actual prejudice, the technical reasons stated
by the Tribunal cannot vitiate the inquiry and be considered as fatal.

10.6. Relying on an order dated 22.03.2006 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2453 of 1997, he submitted that
one Mr. Pramod Bhangale had challenged the seniority of present
Respondent No. 1 and after hearing both sides, this Court has held that
said Mr. Bhangale was senior to Respondent No. 1 and therefore, in any
case reinstatement to the post of Headmaster, is not possible.

10.7. That the impugned order requires interference.

10.8. That under interim order of this Court,             Respondent No. 1
resumed services as Assistant Teacher from 24.11.2003 and as such the
real dispute that survives is about back-wages from 10.07.2002 (date of
termination) till 24.11.2003 (date of resumption as Assistant Teacher
under interim order of this Court).

11.            The Respondent No. 1 has appeared in person and made
submissions as party in person, pursuant to permission granted by
concerned Committee of the Registry. He has made submissions in
vernacular (Marathi language) which were heard and considered. He
has filed affidavit in reply affirmed on 27.08.2026. For better



Sneha Chavan                                                               6
                                                 901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



understanding and clarity in the matter, the submissions made by
Respondent No. 1 as reflecting from his affidavit, are being considered.
He contended as follows. That the petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and latches inasmuch as the petition has been kept
pending for 23 years. That the Petitioner-Management has kept the
petition deliberately and willfully pending, resulting in delay and
latches in hearing of the petition. That the sole purpose of interim stay
was to prevent the implementation of the Tribunal order and under
interim order, he was compelled to work as Assistant Teacher (on lower
post) until his retirement on 31.10.2013. That he is entitled to full back
wages from the date of termination till the date of retirement along
with all consequential benefits. That the aspect of seniority between
him and Mr. Bhangale is not at all concerned with the present petition
because the present petition is about termination pursuant to an illegal
inquiry. That the question of seniority between himself and Mr.
Bhangale was not a subject matter before the Tribunal and therefore,
cannot have any effect. That the judgment given in the petition filed by
Mr. Bhangale will not validate the illegal termination. That condition of
not claiming equity will not have any bearing on the final consideration
of petition. That his salary deduction from 2003 to 2013 must be set
aside and an amount of Rs.8,64,000/- deducted from his salary must be
refunded to him along with interest @ 12% per annum. He has
supported the impugned order.

12.            Learned AGP relying upon affidavit-in-reply filed by the
Deputy Education Officer, (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Thane contented
that the Respondent No. 1 had indulged into serious mal-practices
resulting into loss to the State Exchequer and it was brought to the
notice of the Management. She submitted that neither in the Appeal nor



Sneha Chavan                                                             7
                                                    901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



in this petition, any prayer is made about deductions already effected
from the salary. She submitted that whether the inquiry is faulty for
technical reason or otherwise, it is a matter between Management and
the employee and the State Exchequer cannot be burdened. She
submitted that as on today, the recovery is over and therefore, no
interference is warranted so far as recovery is concerned. She finally
submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere, the Petitioner
Management be held responsible for payment and not the State.

                          REASONS AND CONCLUSION

13.            I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the Tribunal has
interfered with the decision of termination, broadly on technical
grounds summarized in paragraph 13 of the impugned order, such as :

(a) The awardee retired Headmaster was appointed as convener and it
should have been the President of the Trust.

(b) Appointment of Vice President as CEO is illegal. Delegation of
power to Vice President is illegal.

(c) Charge-sheet issued by the Vice President is illegal.

(d) No documents and list of witnesses were supplied to the Respondent
No. 1 and his nominee.

(e) Procedure under Rule 37 of the said Rules are not followed.

(f) Punishment was pre-determined and inquiry committee have not
endorsed on every page of the record and has not given findings on
charges framed.

(g)     Specific punishment is not recommended.

14.            Most of the above reasons are technical in nature. Rule 36 of


Sneha Chavan                                                                8
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



the said Rules provides for the inquiry committee which is mandated to
conduct inquiry in case of major penalty like the present case where
termination is imposed. Under Sub-Rule 5, the convener of the
committee is provided to be nominated by the President and in the
present case, the awardee Headmaster has been appointed as convener
as nominee of the President. There is no illegality in appointment of
convener as such.

15.            In the present case, the Headmaster himself is a delinquent
and as such he could not have acted as Chief Executive Officer and
therefore, Vice President was appointed as CEO about which no
illegality is found.

16.            No reason or specific rule is indicated to hold that delegation
of power by President to Vice President is illegal. Also no bar is shown
to nominate retired awardee Headmaster as convener, provided under
Rule 36(5) of the said Rules.

17.            On perusal of minutes of inquiry proceedings produced on
record, along with charge sheet, it is seen that the Management through
its President has issued legal notice clearly informing the charges on
08.04.2002. The appointed CEO has also sent chargesheet on
06.05.2002 clearly mentioning all the charges. The first meeting of the
inquiry committee took place on 14.05.2002 when both the Respondent
No.1 and his nominated representative remained absent. Thereafter, on
18.05.2002 again Respondent No. 1 and his nominated representative
remained absent. Thereafter, on 28.05.2002 again Respondent No. 1
and his nominated representative remained absent. Thereafter on
15.06.2002, Respondent No. 1 remained absent; however, his
representative was present, who demanded documents and evidence in



Sneha Chavan                                                                 9
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



support of the charges, which request was accepted and next date was
given. On 22.06.2002, again Respondent No. 1 remained absent, but his
representative was present. The letter sent by Respondent No. 1 giving
reasons for not remaining present was read out and it was recorded that
the reasons are not appropriate and therefore, again an opportunity was
given to remain present on next meeting. On this day, the objection
regarding President of the institution should be one of the committee
members, was raised. However, it was informed that in the Executive
Committee meeting dated 18.04.2002 under Resolution No. 3, the
President has specifically given rights/authority to Vice President and
therefore, the technical objection was overruled. From the minutes of
this meeting, nothing can be seen that any objection regarding non
receipt of documents and evidence was raised.

18.            Thereafter, on 29.06.2002, the Respondent No. 1 as well as his
representative both remained present. The charges were again read
over to Respondent No. 1. The authorized officer of the Management
made submissions stating that the allegations are serious in nature
which has resulted in the image of the institution being tarnished. It
was contended that the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 has been not
befitting for the post of Headmaster, who has indulged in suppression
and misappropriation, resulting in Education Officer issuing specific
letter. It is recorded in this meeting that on Management’s
representative making submissions, Respondent No. 1 created a ruckus
and made irrelevant submissions for 15 minutes and left the meeting
without taking any permission and did not show any further interest in
participation. The minutes further indicates that thereafter, the
documents and evidence produced in support of the charges were
considered.



Sneha Chavan                                                                 10
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



19.            In this backdrop, finally the inquiry committee has given its
report specifically holding Respondent No. 1 guilty of all the charges.
Hence, it cannot be said that punishment was pre-determined.

20.            In view of such record, it cannot be said that the charges were
not known to the Respondent No. 1 or sufficient opportunity was not
given. In fact, the Respondent No. 1 himself and his representatives
have attended the inquiry proceedings. No grievance about non supply
of documents or witness list was raised. Respondent No. 1 has adopted
method of non-co-operation and walked out. In such circumstances,
unless Respondent No. 1 proved that there was any actual and real
prejudice caused to him, the inquiry could not have been held as
vitiated for technical reasons.

21.            From the aforesaid discussion and material available on
record, it is clear that till the last meeting, the Respondent No. 1 chose
not to participate in the inquiry proceedings and finally on the last
meeting, he created a ruckus, made irrelevant submissions, adopted non
co-operation and walked out. No reply is shown to have been filed by
the Respondent No. 1.

22.            In Indra Bhanu Gaur v/s Committee Management of M. M.
Degree College and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 281, Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the case of termination and prejudice caused to the
delinquent, has 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
exhibits defiance and total indifference to cooperation.

23.            Also in Thapar Education Society and Ors. v/s. Shyam Maroti
Bhasarkar and Anr. 19973(3) Mh.L J. 709 while considering Rule 33,


Sneha Chavan                                                                 11
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



36 and 37 of the said Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that non supply of documents would be innocuous if the employee
could not show actual prejudice on account of such non-supply of
documents.

24.            In the present case, as is observed above, the charges were
clearly communicated, the representative had demanded documents
which were agreed to be supplied. Subsequent minutes do not indicate
any grievance made about non receipt of documents. The participation
of Respondent No. 1 has been only once and that too was of non-co-
operation with the inquiry committee. In such circumstances, a party
who chooses not to respond or does not remain present or does not co-
operate before the inquiry committee, cannot turn around and contend
that documents were not supplied unless actual prejudice is established.

25.            In the facts and circumstances narrated above, in my
considered view real prejudice was not established at all and therefore,
the proceedings of inquiry committee could not have been held as
illegal or vitiated.

26.            It has come on record that by way of interim relief, by consent
of both sides, the Respondent No. 1 was allowed to work as Assistant
Teacher and his salary of Assistant Teacher was directed to be released.
However, under the same impugned order, this Court clarified that it is
open for the Petitioner-Management to pursue the recovery proceedings
as directed by the Education Officer in accordance with law. The same
order also records that Respondent No. 1 shall not claim any equities. In
the teeth of such clear interim arrangement and Respondent No. 1
working during pendency of the petition drawing salary of Assistant
Teacher with deductions, when the inquiry proceedings are found to be



Sneha Chavan                                                                 12
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



not vitiated, it is not possible to interfere in the recovery made as
directed by the education officer.

27.            It is important to note that pendency of the petition cannot be
considered as delay or latches on the part of the Petitioner. The said
argument of Respondent No.1 is completely misconceived. The
argument of Respondent No.1 (party in person) that the Judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Mr. Bhangale’s petition is ‘oral Judgment’
and therefore, should not be considered as authentic, is only stated to
be rejected. Similarly, the argument of Respondent No. 1 that he can
claim equity for recovery of deductions is without merit, in view of
interim order. The Court can not lose sight of the fact that by consent of
the parties, it was directed that Respondent No. 1 shall work as
Assistant Teacher without claiming any equity. It is important to note
that at the time of passing interim order dated 19.11.2003, this Court
had perfectly balanced the equity inasmuch as , the Petitioner-
Management, despite finding Respondent No.1 guilty of all charges, had
consented/agreed to allow him to work as Assistant Teacher and
permitting him to draw salary of Assistant Teacher and in reciprocation,
Respondent No.1 had agreed not to claim any equity.

28.            Learned AGP is right in her submission that neither in the
appeal before Tribunal nor in this Court, any prayer is made about the
order of recovery, which was specifically permitted to continue during
pendency of the petition. Perusal of the Appeal memo in the Tribunal
supports this submission. In view of the fact that the inquiry
proceedings are found to be not vitiated and since it is found that no
real prejudice has been established by Respondent No. 1, it is not
possible to pass any order in respect of the amount already recovered by
the State from the salary of Respondent No. 1.


Sneha Chavan                                                                 13
                                                     901 wp-7972-03 C2.doc



29.            The prayers made in affidavit-in-reply about salary deductions,
are without challenging the order of the Tribunal.

30.            After hearing Mr. Bhangale and Respondent No.1 in person,
the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order way back in March
2006 holding that Respondent No. 1 was junior to Mr. Bhangale.
Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that this order
of the Division Bench about seniority has been challenged by
Respondent No. 1. In that view of the matter, reinstatement to the post
of Headmaster is also out of question, as the same would be contrary to
seniority held by this Court.

31.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, interference by the Tribunal in inquiry committee
report and consequent termination, has been found to be perverse.

32.            Therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated
07.10.2003 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Appeal No. 58 of 2002 is
dismissed. However, since Respondent No.1 has worked as Assistant
Teacher during pendency of the petition and is already retired and is
duly receiving pension and other benefits as per salary of the Assistant
Teacher, the said position will not be disturbed and he shall continue to
receive the post retirement benefits as he is receiving today.

33.            The Writ Petition is disposed of and Rule is made absolute in
above terms. No order as to costs.

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

                                                   (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                 14