SHRI LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI MEMORIAL TRUST, THROUGH PRESIDENTversusMANOJ SHAYAMSING RAVAT AND ORS

                                                                       8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2011

                      Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Trust,              ... Petitioner

NAVNATH
                      Through President
SITARAM                              Versus
WAGHMARE
                      Manoj Shayamsing Ravat And Ors.                       ...Respondents
Digitally signed by
NAVNATH SITARAM
WAGHMARE                                                ****
Date: 2026.08.21
18:56:15 +0530
                      Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Akhilesh Adhav for the Petitioner.
                      None for the Respondent No.1.
                      Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan AGP for the Respondent No. 2 and 3/State.
                                                        ****
                                                 CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                  DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
                      P.C. :

                      1.       Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management. None
                      appeared for Respondent No. 1/Employee.

                      2.       Petitioner is filed challenging order dated 14.07.2011 passed by
                      Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai Region, Mumbai (‘the
                      Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No. 5 of 2010 by which appeal filed by
                      Respondent No.1/Employee is allowed setting aside termination order
                      dated 15.01.2010 and directing the Petitioner/Management to reinstate
                      the Respondent No.1 on the post of ‘peon’ with continuity of service
                      benefits but without back-wages. The Petitioner/Management is set at
                      liberty to conduct Departmental Enquiry against the Respondent No.1
                      afresh for the same charges by following procedure of law under Rule
                      36 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
                      Rules 1981 ('the said Rules' for short) framed under Maharashtra
                      Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,
                      1977 (‘the said Act’ for short).


                      Navnath Waghmare                                                         1
                                                         8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



                                   BRIEF BACKGROUND

3.      Petitioner is an Educational Institute. The Respondent No.1 was
appointed as Peon in the school which is run by the Petitioner, with
effect from 13.06.1995. The Petitioner received a letter from Police Sub
Inspector on 25.01.2009 informing that Respondent No.1 /Employee
has    been        arrested   on    the   charges   of       conspiring          with   a
co-accused/builder in connection with preparing fabricated documents
for receiving home-loan amounts and in connection with charges of
misappropriation. The Petitioner issued show-cause notice dated
30.03.2009 informing Respondent No. 1 that (i) he has remained
absent from duties from November 2008, (ii) Headmaster of the school
has received letter from a bank along with attachment order of salary of
Respondent No.1, (iii) Respondent No. 1 has misrepresented that he
was the Senior Clerk of the school when he was a peon, (iv) written
complaints have been received from the parents of the students stating
that he has grabbed amounts from the parents for the purpose of
depositing in school office, however never deposited it. The show-cause
notice stated that the actions of Respondent No.1 are of such magnitude
that the management no longer trusts him and therefore he was called
upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against
him.

4.      The Respondent No.1 replied the show cause notice.

5.      The Petitioner-Institute constituted an Enquiry Committee and it
was informed to the Respondent No.1 by letter dated 29.04.2009.

6.      On 05.06.2009, statement of allegations as well as chargesheet
was sent to Respondent No. 1.

7.      From 29.04.2009 till 12.09.2009, as many as 7 letters were sent


Navnath Waghmare                                                                 2
                                                 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



to the Respondent No. 1 calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry
Committee and present his case with supporting evidence. However,
Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. Since
he was not participating, evidence was led before the Enquiry
Committee and finally a communication dated 09.10.2009 was issued
to the Respondent No. 1 again calling upon him to appear before
Committee and defend his case. However, he did not turn up.

8.      The Enquiry Committee issued its report holding that the
Respondent No.1 deserves punishment of dismissal from the service and
recommended accordingly.

9.      The Petitioner/ Management thereafter terminated the services of
Respondent No.1 by termination letter dated 15.01.2010.

10.     The Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.5 of 2010 in the Tribunal
challenging the termination order. He contended that the enquiry
conducted against him is not as per provisions of the said Act and said
Rules. He contended that the allegations in the statement as well as
charges are vague. It was further contended that he was not given
documents along with chargesheet. It was contented that principles of
natural justice had not been followed. He alleged harassment.

11.     The Petitioner/Management filed written statement contending
inter alia that the Enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law
and applicable rules. It is denied that principles of natural justice were
not followed. It contented that the Respondent No.1 has committed
serious misconduct including misappropriation of money. It contended
that despite clear knowledge of the enquiry being conducted, the
Respondent No.1 has chosen not to participate in the same and
prejudice is not at all proved. It contented that since the Respondent



Navnath Waghmare                                                         3
                                                 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



No.1 did not participate in the enquiry, it has been conducted ex parte
having no option left. It also pointed out that parents of students have
lodged written complaints alleging misappropriation of fees amount.

12.     The tribunal after hearing the appeal on merits has allowed it as
explained above.

                                 SUBMISSIONS

13.     Learned counsel Mr. Helekar appearing for the Petitioner
/Management submitted that in the entire appeal memo, the
Respondent No.1 has not contended anything about the prejudice
caused to him. He submitted that receipt of statement of allegations as
well as chargesheet is admitted; however, since the Respondent No.1
did not participate at all and did not respond to any of the letters, he
can not be permitted to contend alleged breach of principle of natural
justice. He submitted that Respondent No.1 never demanded any
document specifically. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has
not nominated any person to be part of Enquiry Committee as required
under Rule 36(3) and 36(4) of the said Rules, despite request made by
letter dated 29.04.2009. He relied on following judgments in support of
his case as under :

i) Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee Management of MM Degree College
and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 281

ii) Thapar Education Society and Anr. Vs. Shyam Maroti Bhasarkar and
Ors. [1997(3) Mh.L.J. 709]. in support of his case.

14.     Record shows that the petition was admitted on 13.01.2012 and
the impugned order was stayed by this Court. Notice was duly served
upon Respondent No.1 and in fact, an advocate had filed vakalatnama
for Respondent No.1 whose name is appearing on the cause list today.

Navnath Waghmare                                                         4
                                                    8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



Despite such position, nobody is appearing for Respondent No. 1.

                           REASONS AND CONCLUSION

15.     I have considered the submissions and perused the record
including the impugned order.

16.     The Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the Respondent No.1
has not explained as to why he remained absent before the Enquiry
Committee. The Tribunal has in fact noted in paragraph No.23 that it
cannot pick up technical words from the Rules and adopt hypertechnical
approach to hold that Enquiry was vitiated when there is no actual
prejudice caused to the delinquent under facts and circumstances of the
case. The Tribunal was also conscious of the law laid down by this Court
that the delinquent has to prove and establish what actual prejudice is
caused; otherwise, the enquiry cannot be vitiated for technical reasons.

17.     The tribunal found that provisions under Rule 37(4) of the said
Rules are not followed resulting in prejudice being caused to
Respondent No.1 by non-supply of copies of summery of enquiry
proceedings and copies of evidence collected before Enquiry Committee.

18.     Record     shows   that   even   since   show-cause notice              dated
30.03.2009 was issued and the statement of allegations as well as
charge sheet was sent to Respondent No.1, as many as 7 letters were
written to the Respondent No.1 which were received by him and the
acknowledgments are produced on record. Even during the proceedings
of enquiry, notices were sent to the Respondent No.1 on 22.08.2007,
18.10.2008,        22.10.2008,    27.11.2008,    28.11.2008,          08.12.2008,
6.01.2009 and 12.01.2009.         Final letter dated 09.10.2009 records that
in spite of sufficient time being given to the Respondent No.1, he has
failed and neglected to respond; however, he was again called upon to


Navnath Waghmare                                                            5
                                                   8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



attend and participate in the enquiry.

19.     It is clear from the aforesaid dates that more than required
intimations were given to Respondent No.1 who has clearly chosen not
to respond and not to remain present before the Enquiry Committee.
Such attitude of an employee is nothing but an attempt to dodge the
process of law which cannot be countenanced. It does not lie in the
mouth of a party, who does not respond to the notices and intimations
calling upon him to participate in enquiry, that principles of natural
justice are not followed. Nothing stopped Respondent No.1 from
demanding specific documents, if non-supply of such documents were
important in his opinion for the decision on merits. That is if at all he
chose to appear before the Committee.

20.     The Tribunal, despite being conscious of the fact that no
submissions were advanced explaining absence before the Enquiry
Committee, has found fault with the proceedings of Enquiry Committee
holding that necessary documents were not sent.

21.     In Indra Bhanu Gaur (Supra), 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.' These observations clearly support the case of the
Petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case.

22.     Also, in Thapar Education Society (Supra), while considering
Rule 33, 36 and 37 of the said Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that non-supply of documents would be innocuous if the



Navnath Waghmare                                                           6
                                                   8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



employee could not show prejudice on account of non-supply of the
document.

23.     In the present case, the contention raised about non-supply of
documents is nothing but a self-suiting argument raised by the
Respondent No. 1, without actually participating in the enquiry and
showing what was the prejudice caused to him. A party who chooses
not to respond to notices and does not remain present before the
Enquiry Committee, cannot turn around and contend that documents
were not supplied, unless actual prejudice is established. In the present
case, in my considered view, prejudice is not at all established as there
has been complete absence before the Enquiry Committee.

24.     At the cost of repetition, it is important to note that in the appeal
memo itself the Respondent No.1 has admitted receipt of show cause
notice and receipt of statement of allegations and receipt of charge-
sheet. In the teeth of such admissions, the Respondent No.1 fully aware
that there are allegations against him and he has been charged with
serious charges. He has chosen to remain absent. He was therefore
required to establish clear prejudice, despite his non-appearance before
the Enquiry Committee.

25.     The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion about the merits of
the allegations and has in fact given liberty to the Petitioner -
management to conduct departmental inquiry afresh. The Tribunal has
not granted any back-wages to the Respondent No.1 and the order of
reinstatement has remained stayed since 13.01.2012 till date
throughout.

26.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons indicated
above, in my view, the view taken by the Tribunal about non compliance



Navnath Waghmare                                                           7
                                                  8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc



with Rule 37(4) is perverse, in absence of real prejudice proved. In that
view of the matter, interference is required.

27.     Writ Petition is therefore allowed. Impugned order dated
14.07.2011 is quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 5 of 2010 filed by
Respondent No. 1 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
No order as to costs.

28.     All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.



                                                (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Navnath Waghmare                                                          8