HEMLATA EKNATH PISEversusSHUBHAM BAHU-UDDESHIYA SANSTHA WADDHAMNA & ORS.

           [2026] 2 S.C.R. 610 : 2026 INSC 147

                Hemlata Eknath Pise
                         v.
          Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha
                Waddhamna & Ors.
           (Civil Appeal No(s). 1558-1559 of 2026)
                        11 February 2026
 [Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the
School Tribunal to consider afresh the claim of the appellant for
reinstatement in service, based on its consideration of only a sole
point raised on behalf of the first respondent while not dealing with
the other points raised.

                            Headnotes†
Judgment/Order – Several issues raised, matter decided
considering a solitary point without dealing with other points –
Impermissibility – School Tribunal set aside the order of the
first respondent dismissing the appellant from service and
granted reinstatement together with consequential benefits
to her – Writ petition filed by first respondent – High Court
considering a solitary point raised on behalf of the first
respondent (i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into all the
records and proceedings, more particularly the resolution
authorizing the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings
against the appellant) and without looking into any other point,
remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider afresh the
claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service – Review
petition filed by appellant, rejected – Challenge to the order
allowing the writ petition and the order dismissing the review
petition:
Held: When several issues arise for being answered by a Court
in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be
preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues
with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just
one decisive point – High Court ought not to have remanded the
matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                              611

                     Hemlata Eknath Pise v.
        Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.

     of only a sole point – Even if the Secretary of the first respondent
     were authorized to draw up proceedings against the appellant
     by issuing charge-sheet, whether or not the inquiry suffered from
     breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and also as to
     whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified, ought to have
     engaged the High Court’s due consideration – High Court faltered
     in deciding only one single point while not dealing with the others,
     which is a fundamental flaw vitiating its order – Impugned orders
     set aside, writ petition remanded to the High Court for a fresh
     consideration thereof in the light of the claims and defences of
     the parties. [Paras 8-10]

     Judgment/Order – Reasoned decision – Several issues raised,
     each of such issue to be dealt with:
     Held: When several issues arise for being answered by a Court
     in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be
     preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues
     with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just
     one decisive point – This approach, apart from ensuring that all
     issues are considered providing clarity and assuring some sort of a
     finality, would respect the rights of the litigants to a comprehensive
     decision; also, if an appeal were carried from such decision, the
     appellate court would be benefitted by a reasoned decision of the
     original court. [Para 9]

                              List of Keywords
     Only one single point decided while not dealing with the others;
     Solitary point raised was considered; No other point looked into;
     Several issues raised; Only one single point decided; Reasoned
     decision; School Tribunal; Dismissal from service; Claim for
     reinstatement in service; Reached the age of superannuation;
     Matter wrongly remanded.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1558-1559
     of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2024 and 25.09.2024
     of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in WP No.
     5899 of 2019 and MRA No. 838 of 2024, respectively
612                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


                                     Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Amol B. Karande, B Lakshmi Pallesh, Ms. Akshda, Ashutosh
       Shrivastava, Manoj Ramkrushna Shete.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Patil, Parth Johri, Sachin Singh, Pratik
       Kumar Singh, Shashank Upadhyay, Madhur Duggal, Sanchit
       Agrahari, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Narendar Rao Taneer, Ms. M.
       Harshini, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Naman Tandon, Siddharth
       Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma.

                      Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                           Judgment

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
       by the impugned judgment and order dated 05th September, 2024
       allowed a writ petition1 filed by the first respondent. A remand was
       ordered to the School Tribunal, Nagpur2 to consider afresh the claim
       of the appellant for reinstatement in service upon quashing of the
       final order of dismissal from service.
3.     Incidentally, the Tribunal vide its order dated 8th August, 2019 had
       set aside an order of the first respondent dismissing the appellant
       from service and granted reinstatement together with consequential
       benefits to her.
4.     Perusal of the impugned order dated 05th September, 2024 reveals
       that the High Court considered a solitary point raised on behalf of
       the first respondent, i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into all the
       records and proceedings more particularly the resolution authorizing
       the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings against the appellant,
       and upon recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needs to revisit
       the matter and without looking into any other point, expressed the
       view that a remand was indeed called for. It was accordingly ordered,
       while quashing the Tribunal’s aforesaid order dated 8th August, 2019.


1    Writ Petition No.5899 of 2019
2    Tribunal
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         613

                       Hemlata Eknath Pise v.
          Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.

5.    Crestfallen, the appellant applied for a review of the order dated 05th
      September, 20243, contending that the disciplinary proceedings that
      were initiated had been conducted in gross breach of the principles
      of natural justice. She highlighted not being allowed to cross examine
      all the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the High Court’s attention was
      sought to be drawn to the factual position that cross examination of
      the main witness of the management was in progress on 31st July,
      2017, and it was deferred till the next date when it was supposed
      to resume; however, on 1st August, 2017, the inquiry officer abruptly
      closed the proceedings without granting opportunity to the appellant
      to complete cross-examination of the said witness as well as the
      other witnesses. She also sought to contend that the Tribunal had
      found the charges not to have been proved. By applying for review,
      she urged the High Court to consider the aforesaid points.
6.    The review petition, however, did not find favour with the High Court
      which, by its order dated 25th September, 2024, rejected the same.
7.    The order dated 05th September, 2024 allowing the writ petition and
      the order dated 25th September, 2024 dismissing the review petition
      are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
8.    In our considered view, having regard to the aforesaid facts and
      circumstances, the High Court ought not to have remanded the
      matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration
      of only the sole point noticed above. Even if the Secretary of the
      first respondent were authorized to draw up proceedings against the
      appellant by issuing charge-sheet, whether or not the inquiry suffered
      from breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and also as
      to whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified, ought to have
      engaged the High Court’s due consideration.
9.    Law is pretty well-settled that when several issues arise for being
      answered by a Court in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal
      thereof ought to be preceded by recording the Court’s answers to
      each of such issues with reasons rather than the decision of the
      Court focusing on just one decisive point. This approach, apart from
      ensuring that all issues are considered providing clarity and assuring
      some sort of a finality, would respect the rights of the litigants to a


3    MRA No.838/2024
614                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       comprehensive decision; also, if an appeal were carried from such
       decision, the appellate court would be benefitted by a reasoned
       decision of the original court.
10. The High Court, thus, appears to have faltered in deciding only one
    single point while not dealing with the others, which is a fundamental
    flaw vitiating its order dated 5th September, 2024. Accordingly, we set
    aside the orders impugned in these appeals and order a remand of
    the writ petition to the High Court for a fresh consideration thereof
    in the light of the claims and defences of the parties.
11. Since the appellant has reached the age of superannuation and there
    is, thus, no question of her reinstatement in service, inter alia, the
    primary questions that would necessarily arise for decision before
    the High Court are whether: (i) the Tribunal was justified in interfering
    with the disciplinary action taken by the first respondent against the
    appellant and (ii) the appellant would be entitled to back wages as
    well as retiral benefits, should the first question be decided against
    the first respondent.
12. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to assign
    the writ petition to the roster Bench for its consideration and disposal
    in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within a
    period of four months of such assignment.
13. All questions on fact and law are kept open for the parties to urge
    before the High Court.
14. We also leave it open to the parties to explore a mediated settlement
    notwithstanding that no such settlement in that behalf could be
    reached before us.
15. The appeals stand allowed on the aforesaid terms.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey