High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision — Confirmed reinstatement of Respondent No.1 — Directed payment of full back wages — Found the inquiry committee’s composition vitiated by bias and procedural flaws.

MAJOR ACTS:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 227 — Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court — Limited Scope of Judicial Review

2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) — Order XII, Rule VI — Admissions of Pleadings — Relevance in Determining Back Wages

3. Education Service Rules — Disciplinary Proceedings — Constitution of Inquiry Committee — Procedural Propriety and Fairness

SUBJECTS: 

Termination — Inquiry Committee — Bias — Procedural Impropriety — Back Wages — Reinstatement — Natural Justice — Nemo Judex in Causa Sua — Judicial Review

NATURE OF LITIGATION: Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 2 August 2019 passed by the School Tribunal, Mumbai.

RELIEF SOUGHT: Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the Tribunal’s order that reinstated Respondent No.1 and awarded back wages.

REASON FOR FILING THE CASE: The Petitioners contended that the School Tribunal failed to appreciate the substantive merits of the case and improperly granted relief based on procedural grounds.

PREVIOUS DECISIONS:

1. School Tribunal, Mumbai — Appeal No. 7 of 2018 — Allowed — Termination Order Quashed — Reinstatement and Back Wages Granted

2. High Court, Bombay — Civil Writ Petition No. 13054 of 2016 — Directed De Novo Inquiry — Reinstatement Ordered from 1 August 2017

ISSUES:

a) Whether the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by bias? b) Whether the appointment of the Inquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice? c) Whether the grant of back wages was justified in the absence of proof of gainful employment?

d) Whether the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 was rightly invoked?

SUBMISSIONS/ARGUMENTS:

Petitioners:

1. Inquiry Officer’s appointment was in accordance with the rules and did not necessarily indicate bias.

2. Back wages should not have been granted without specific proof of non-employment during the disputed period.

Respondents:

1. Inquiry Officer was the son of the President of the Management, leading to a clear conflict of interest.

2. Procedural impropriety and lack of neutrality rendered the entire inquiry void.

3. Respondent No.1 made a sworn statement of non-employment, which remained uncontested.

RATIO:

1. An inquiry conducted by a committee comprising individuals with a direct conflict of interest contravenes the principle of natural justice — Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Para 14, 20)

2. Back wages must follow reinstatement when termination is found unlawful, provided non-employment is asserted and remains unchallenged — Deepali Gundu Survase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak (2013) 10 SCC 324 (Para 24)

3. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 extends to correcting jurisdictional errors, procedural lapses, and instances of manifest injustice — Waryam Singh v. Amarnath AIR 1954 SC 215 (Para 12)