PANCHASHIL PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ANR. v. NANDA BALASAHEB SHINDE AND ANR.,
Limits of High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 regarding School Tribunal Orders and Inquiries Vitiated by Prejudice and Procedural Lapses.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:15592
Decision Date: 26-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 227; Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977; Principles of Natural Justice; Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry and Reinstatement
- Facts: The respondent, a primary school teacher, was terminated by the petitioner management on 26th May 2006 following an inquiry into allegations of misconduct, including the alleged assault of the headmistress. The School Tribunal, however, found the inquiry process to be riddled with prejudice and procedural improprieties, noting that specific charges for the alleged assault were never actually framed despite the inquiry committee's findings on them. Furthermore, after the Tribunal set aside the initial termination and ordered reinstatement, the teacher was allegedly prevented from joining her duties, which led to a second appeal before the Tribunal for "otherwise termination". The Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing reinstatement with full backwages and costs, while observing that the management and the Education Officer had consistently failed to comply with statutory directions and previous court orders.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner school management filed two writ petitions (No. 3267 of 2007 and No. 4099 of 2017) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the School Tribunal's orders dated 16th March 2007 and 27th January 2017, which had set aside the teacher's termination and directed her reinstatement.
- Issue: Whether the School Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or acted with perversity in setting aside the termination orders and directing reinstatement with backwages, and whether the High Court should interfere with such findings under Article 227.
- Holding: No, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal's orders for reinstatement and backwages.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the School Tribunal has the authority to interfere with a disciplinary inquiry if the proceedings are conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice or are based on no evidence. In this case, the Tribunal's finding of prejudice was supported by the fact that the management relied on allegations of assault for which no formal charges were framed, rendering the inquiry report invalid. Regarding the "otherwise termination", the Court found that the petitioners failed to produce evidence that the teacher deliberately refused to join; instead, the record showed she was prevented from signing the muster. Under Article 227, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to ensuring subordinate tribunals stay "within the bounds of their authority" and cannot be used to correct mere errors of fact or law unless there is patent perversity or a gross failure of justice, neither of which was present here.
🔒 For Members Only