Facts: Namrata Ramchandra Zagade, the Petitioner, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Respondent No. 7 School in 2011. Despite an initial appointment for eleven months, her services continued uninterrupted until her termination on 06.03.2019. The termination notice stated that the post she occupied had been abolished. The Petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that it was illegal and violated the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 ("MEPS Act") and Rules.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner initially approached the Education Officer and Deputy Director of Education without success. She then filed an appeal before the School Tribunal, Pune, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act. The School Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, declaring the termination illegal but only awarded six months' salary as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner then filed a Writ Petition (No. 3076 of 2022) in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the School Tribunal's denial of reinstatement.
Issue: Was the School Tribunal justified in denying reinstatement to the Petitioner after declaring her termination illegal, and was the termination valid given the lack of due process and retrospective effect?
Holding: No, the High Court held that the School Tribunal erred in denying reinstatement. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the reinstatement of the Petitioner with full backwages.
Reasoning: The High Court found that the termination was illegal because it was done without following due process, including failing to conduct any departmental inquiry, issue a show-cause notice, or frame charges. The Court noted that the termination letter itself indicated that the termination was due to the Petitioner's behavior, which amounted to putting a stigma on her. The Court emphasized that once the Tribunal concluded that the termination was illegal, reinstatement should ordinarily follow unless there were extraordinary reasons to deny it. The reasons given by the Tribunal for denying reinstatement, such as a pending criminal complaint filed by the Trustees of the Trust, were deemed insufficient and based on a "complete non-application of mind". The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Constable Uma Shankaran Vs. Union Of India & Ors., stating that when termination is held to be illegal and no proof of alternate employment exists, denial of backwages is unjustified. The court stated, "Here in the present case admittedly no show-cause-notice is issued, no dereliction is alleged on the part of Petitioner, no charge is framed, no inquiry is conducted, no statements are recorded and abruptly on oral termination a retrospective termination letter is issued which is in complete defiance of the due process of law."