Holding

Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 is mandatory; failure to submit a combined report from all three members within the ten‑day period renders the findings invalid, necessitating a fresh inquiry.

Summary

A school teacher (Respondent No.2) was charged with several offences and an inquiry committee of three members was constituted under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. Rule 37(6) required the committee to communicate its findings to the Management within ten days. Only the convenor (the Management‑nominated member) submitted his report within the time, recommending termination; the other two members submitted their exonerating reports after the deadline. The Tribunal and the High Court reinstated the teacher with back wages, relying on the two later reports. The Supreme Court held that Rule 37(6) is mandatory and that a combined report from all three members must be submitted within the stipulated period; reports submitted after the deadline are invalid. Consequently, the orders of reinstatement, back wages and the termination order were set aside, and the Management was directed to constitute a fresh inquiry committee as per Rule 36(2)(a), treating the teacher as suspended with subsistence allowance.

Issues considered

Whether the findings of two members of the inquiry committee submitted after the ten‑day period prescribed by Rule 37(6) are binding on the Management.
Whether Rule 37(6) is mandatory and requires a combined report from all three members within the stipulated time.
Whether the termination order based on a single member’s report and the reinstatement order based on the delayed reports are valid.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981s. Rule 36(2)(a), s. Rule 37(4), s. Rule 37(5), s. Rule 37(6)

Subjects

service lawinquiry committeemandatory procedural ruletermination of servicereinstatementback wagesprivate school service rulesRule 37(6)compliance

Judgment

r
A VIDY A VIKAS MANDAL AND ANR.
v.
THE EDUCATION OFFICER AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 7, 2007

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

Service Law: :¥

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)
c Rules, 1981-Rule 37(6)-Compliance of-Inquiry Committee consisting of
three members to communicate findings on charges against employee within
time stipulated-Convenor of Inquiry Committee Submitting report within
the time stipulated holding employee guilty-Other two members submitting
report after the stipulated period and exonerating employee-Termination
D order by Management-Set aside by courts below--Correctness of-Held:
Rule 37(6) is mandatory in nature and was to be strictly complied with-
~-
Report of two members and also of individual member not in accordance with
the mandatory provisions-Thus order of reinstatement with back wages set
aside-Order passed by Management also set aside.

E Charges were leveled against the school teacher. Inquiry Committee was
constituted in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 consisting of three members. Under Rule
37(6) the Inquiry Commiteee was required to communicate its findings to the
Management within 10 days. Only the Convenor of the Inquiry Comittee sent
his report and findings within the time stipulated to the Managament that the )-
F employee was guilty. They recommended punishment of termination from
service. Appellant-Management issued termination order of respondent no.2.
Appellant-Management then received the findings of the other two members
of the Inquiry Committee much after the expiry of the stipulated period. Both
these members exonerated the repondent no. 2 Respondent no.2 challenged
G the termination order. Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that two of
the three members of the Inquiry Commitee had exonerated respondent no.2
1· ~
and directed his reinstatement with full back wages. Aggrieved, Management
filed a writ petition. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the same.
Management then filed Letters Patent Appeal which was also dismissed.

H 340
VII'.lY A VlKAS MANDAL v. EDUCATION OFFICER 341

Hence the present appeal. A
Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 which is mandatory in nature, has not
been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three B
members; only one member nominated by the Management has submittted his
Inquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37(6) and admittedly.
the other two members nominated by the employee and an independent
member, have not submitted their report within the time prescribed under
Rule 37(6). However, the Division Bench though noticed that the two members
out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said C
findings by the two members of the committee were submitted after the expiry
of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). The report submitted by individual
members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of
three Members are appointed to inquire into a particular matter, all the three
should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. Since D
the report is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions, the courts below
have committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it
and thereby brdering the reinstatement with back wages. Since the
reinstatement and back wages ordered are quite contrary to the mandatory
provisions of Rule 37(6) the order passed by the Tribunal, and Single Judge
and also of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. Also the order E
passed by the Mangement based on the report submitted by the single member
of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules is set aside.
[Para 9) (345-F-H; 346-A-CJ

1.2. In view of the order passed, rule 36(2) (a) is invoked. The F
Management of the School is directed to constitute the Committee in
accordance with sub-Rules (i) (ii) and (iii) of Rule 36(2)(a) to decide the matter
afresh. The respondent no.2 would be treated under suspension and would be
entitled to the subsistence allowance as per rules with effect from the date of
termination of his services. [Para 10) [346-D-E)
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR1SDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 640 of2007.

From the Final judgment and Order dated 14.7.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in L.P.A. No. 6612003.

Manish Pitale and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellants. H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

A S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, A.P. Mayee and Nikhil Nayyar for the ,..
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned coun~d
B for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Shinde, learned counsel for the Respondent no. I
and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2.

2. Leave granted.
,
<
3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated
c 14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No.66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. A charge-sheet was served on the delinquent
employee. Seven charges were leveled against him. Apart from the charge of
harassment and misbehaviour with girl students, other charges of inefficiency,
in-subordination and corruption were also specified against respondent no.2,
namely, Subhash Lingawar. A Inquity Committee consisting of three members
D was constituted, which consisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar (Nominated by the
Management), Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar (Deliquent's representative) and Mrs.
~-
V.S. Ramteke (State Awardee teacher). Respondent no.2 submitted his reply
to the aforesaid charge sheet. The inquiry was initiated and the first meeting
was held on 10.10.1998. During the pendency of the inquiry, respondent no.2
E was not suspended and he continued to attend to his duties. In the inquiry
proceedings, it was found that the resppndent no.2 was being non-cooperative,
two members of the Inquiry Committee, i.e. Nominee of respondent no.2 and
the State Awardee teacher were trying to stall the proceedings. Upon conclusion
of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37 (4) of the Rules, the Inquiry Committee
sent to respondent no.2 the summary proceedings and copies of statements
F of witnesses for him to submit his explanation within 7 days under
Rule 37 (5). Thus, respondent no.2 had time of? days till 28.2.2000 to submit
his explanation. The respondent no.2 failed to submit his explanation to the
Inquiry Committee. Thus, under Rule 37 (6), the Inquiry Committee was required
to communicate its findings to the Management within I0 days. The requirement
G was mandatory and the period of IO days expired on 9.3.2000. Mr. P.S. Donadkar,
the management nominee and the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee sent his ...
report and findings to the Management. In this report, the aforesaid Member !-
and Convenor of the Inquiry Committee found all charges proved against
r
--
respondent no.2 and having been found guilty, punishment of termination
from service was recommended against respondent no.2. It was also recorded
H in the aforesaid report and findings that the other two members of the Inquiry
t~

VIDYA VIKAS MANDAL v. EDUCATION OFFICER [LAKSHMANAN. J.]343
·.;
Committee had not submitted their findings and that during the course of A
\
' inquiry they had sought to favour respondent no.2 and that their attitude was
not appropriate. As the appellant Management received the findings of only
the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee within the period of 10 days mandated
by Rule 37(6) of the Rules, it decided to terminate the services of respondent
no.2 on the basis of the recommendation and the findings received. The
appellant Management issued order tenn inating the service of respondent B
no.2 w.e.f. 1.4.2000, thereby terminating the service of respondent no.2.

).
4. The findings of the other two members of the Inquiry Committee
-"'
dated 21.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 were received by the appellant Management.
According to the appellant, these findings were no findings in the eyes of law
because the period often days mandated by Rule 37(6) of the Rules whereby
c
findings were to be submitted to the appellant Management, had expired on
9.3.2000 itself. Therefore, Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Management submitted that the aforesaid findings of the two
members were meaningless. The findings of the State Awardee teacher leveled
wild allegations against the Convenor and Management nominee Member of D
the Inquiry Committee. The third member, the nominee of respondent no.2,
-~ simply adopted the findings of the aforesaid State Awardee teacher. In their
-\ findings both these members exonerated the respondent no.2.

5. The respondent no.2 filed an appeal bearing Appeal no.41 of 2000
before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nagpur, challenging the aforesaid E
order oftennination of service passed by the appellant Management. The said
Tribunal allowed the appeal of Respondent no.2 mainly on the ground that
two of the three members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated the
-:: respondent no.2. The Tribunal directed to reinstate respondent no.2 and to
pay full back wages to him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Management F
~ challenged the same before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by
filing a writ petition. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
the writ petition only on the ground that two of the three members had
exonerated the respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the said order, the Management
filed Letters Patent Appeal no.66/2003 before the Division Bench of the High
Court. In this appeal, the Management specifically raised the question of G
. ,.
interi)retation of Rule 37(6) of the aforesaid Rules to show that findings of the
... t two members given after the expiry of the mandatory period of ten days were
no findings in the eyes of law and that the Management was not bound to
accept the same .
. ...
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

, A 6. The Division Bench, however, dismissed the appeal again only on the
ground that two of the three members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated
the respondent no.2. The present appeal was filed against the said order. The
Management also filed review before the Division Bench of the High Court,
which passed the orders in the Letters Patent Appeal. This review application
was also withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court by way of special
B leave petition to challenge the order dated 14.7.2003 passed in L.P.A. no.66/
2003.

7. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
Mr. Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the
C courts below were not justified in holding against the appellants ignoring the
provision of Rule 37(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools
(Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. According to the learned counsel, the
said Rule is mandatory in nature. It is further submitted that the findings
given by two members of the Inquiry Committee exonerating the respondent
no.2 were submitted after the mandatory period of ten days specified in Ru le
D 37 (6) of the 'aforesaid Rules had expired. Therefore, he submitted that the
findings given by the two members of the Inquiry Committee after expiry of
the mandatory period cannot be binding on the appellant-Management while
deciding the question of taking action against respondent no.2. In support
of the above submission, our attention was drawn to sub-Rules (4) (5) and
E (6) of Rule 37 of the aforesaid Rules, which read thus:
"37 (4) The Convenor of the Inquiry Committee shall forward to the
employee or the Head, as the case may be a summary of the proceedings
and copies of statements of witnesses, if any, by registered post
acknowledgment due within four days of completion of the above
steps and allow him a time of seven days to offer his further
F
explanation, if any.

(5) The employee or the Head, as the case may be shall submit his
further explanation to the Convener of the Inquiry Committee within
a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the summary of
G proceedings etc. either personally or by registered post
acknowledgment due.

(6) On receipt of such further explanation or if no explanation is
offered within the aforesaid time the Inquiry Committee shall complete
the inquiry and communicate its findings on the charges against the
H employee and its decision on the basis of these findings to the
VIDY A VIKAS MANDAL v. EDUCATION OFFICER [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 345
J. Management for specific action to be taken against the employee or
~
A
the Head, as the case may be, within ten days after the date fixed for
receipt of further explanation. It shall also forward a copy of the same
by registered post acknowledgment due to the employee or the Head,
as the case may be. A copy of the findings and decision shall also
be endorsed to the Education Officer or the Deputy Director, as the
case may be, by registered post acknowledgment due. Thereafter, the B
decision of the Inquiry Committee shall be implemented by the
Management which shall issue necessary orders within seven days
from the date of receipt of decision of the Inquiry Committee, by
:.-
registered post acknowledgment due. The Management shall also
endorse a copy of its order to the Education Officer or the Deputy
Director as the case may be."
c
8. Our attention was also drawn to Rule 36 sub-clause (2)(a), which
applies to the case of an employee and reads thus:

"36 (2)(a) In the case of an employee-
D
(i) one member from amongst the members of the Management to be
.... nominatecfby the Management, or by the President of the Management
..\ if so authorized by the Management, whose name shall be
communicated to the Chief Executive Officer within 15 days from the
date of the decision of the Management.
E
(ii) one member to be nominated by the employee from amongst the
employees of any private school;

(iii) one member chosen by the Chief Executive Officer from the panel
of teachers on whom State/National Award has been conferred."
-+ F
9. As rig~tly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, Rule
37(?), which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly complied with. The
Inquiry Committee comprising of three members, as already noticed, only one
member nominated by the Management has submitted his Inquiry report
within the time stipulated as per Rule 37(6) and admittedly, the other two
members nominated by the employee and an independent member have not G
" submitted their report within the time prescribed under Rule 37(6). However,
.. ..' the learned Judges of the Division Bench, though noticed that the two
members out of three found the employee not guilty, failed tu appreciate that
the said findings by the two members of the committee were submitted after
the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). In our opinion, the report H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R.

.. A submitted by individual members is also not in accordance with the Rules.
When the Committee of three members are appointed to inquire into a particular
matter, all the three should submit their combined report whether consenting
or otherwise. Since the report is not in accordance with the mandatory
provisions, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and also the Division
Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in accepting the said
B report and acted on it and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back
wages. Since the reinstatement and back wages now ordered are quite contrary
to the mandatory provisions of Rule 37(6), we have no hesitation in setting
aside the order passed by the Tribunal, and learned Single Judge and also ~
of the Division Bench of the High Cou;t. In addition, we also set aside the
C order passed by the Management based on the report submitted by the single
member of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules.

I0. In view of the order now passed by this Court, the Rule 36(2)(a) is
now to be invoked and as per the said Rule, one member from amongst the
members of the Management is to be nominated by the Management or by
D the President of the Management if so authorised by the Management, and
one member is to be nominated from amongst the employees of any private
school and the third member to be chosen by the Chief Executive Officer from
the panel of teachers on whom State/National Award has been conferred. We
direct the Management of the School to constitute the Committee in accordance
E with sub-Rules, (i)(ii) and (iii) of Rule 36(2)(a) to go into the matter afresh. The
respondent no.2, the employee, will be now treated under suspension and he
will be entitled to the subsistence allowance as per rules with effect from the
date of termination of his services. The inquiry shall be completed by the
Committee within a period of six months from the date of their nomination/
constitution.
F
11. The Civil Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs.

N.J. Appeal disposed of.

J ..