The Bombay High Court held that a retired/former employee can be nominated to the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules. The Court quashed the enquiry report dated 16/10/2024, the termination order dated 16/10/2024, and the communications dated 24/08/2024 and 01/07/2024 rejecting the petitioner’s nominee. The Court directed the constitution of a fresh Enquiry Committee in light of its judgment. (Paras: 23, 24.)

The term “employee” in Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules should be given a purposive and contextual interpretation, and it includes retired employees. The MEPS Act is a beneficial legislation, and its provisions should be interpreted in favor of the employee to ensure a fair and reasonable opportunity in disciplinary proceedings. The rejection of a retired employee as a nominee would restrict the employee’s right to a fair enquiry, which is against the spirit of the MEPS Act and Rules. (Paras: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Section 2(7) of the MEPS Act, 1977 – Defines “employee” as any member of the teaching and non-teaching staff of a recognized school.

Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 – Pertains to the nomination of a member to the Enquiry Committee by the Head of the institution.

Rule 37(2)(c) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 – Ensures reasonable opportunity for defense in the enquiry.

Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 – Defines “employee” and includes retrenched employees.

Subjects:

Retired Employee, Enquiry Committee, Nomination, MEPS Rules, Fair Opportunity, Disciplinary Proceedings, Termination, Natural Justice, Beneficial Legislation, Contextual Interpretation.

Facts:

Nature of Litigation: The petitioner, Mangalsingh Amarsingh Rathod, a suspended Headmaster, challenged the rejection of his request to nominate a retired employee to the Enquiry Committee constituted against him.

Remedy Sought: The petitioner sought quashing of the enquiry report and his subsequent termination, arguing that the rejection of his nominee violated his right to a fair enquiry.

Reason for Filing: The petitioner contended that a retired employee would be free from management pressures and could devote more time to the enquiry, ensuring a fair process.

Previous Decisions: The Full Bench in Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Awasari (BK) Vs. Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar (2016) had held that a retired teacher could be part of the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(a)(iii) of the MEPS Rules.

Issues:

Whether a retired employee can be nominated to the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(b)(ii) of the MEPS Rules?

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s nominee violated his right to a fair enquiry?

Whether the definition of “employee” in Section 2(7) of the MEPS Act includes retired employees for the purpose of nomination to the Enquiry Committee?

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

A retired employee would ensure a fair and unbiased enquiry, free from management pressures.

The Full Bench in Ramesh Bhimrao Narayankar (2016) had allowed retired teachers to be part of the Enquiry Committee under Rule 36(2)(a)(iii).

The MEPS Act is a beneficial legislation, and its provisions should be interpreted liberally in favor of the employee.

Respondents’ Arguments:

Section 2(7) of the MEPS Act defines “employee” as a serving member of the teaching or non-teaching staff, and thus, a retired employee cannot be nominated.

Rule 10 of the MEPS Rules categorizes employees, and a retired employee does not fall under any category.