8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8468 OF 2011 Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Trust, Through President ... Petitioner Versus Manoj Shayamsing Ravat And Ors. ...Respondents **** Mr. Neel Helekar a/w Akhilesh Adhav for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent No.1. Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan AGP for the Respondent No. 2 and 3/State. **** CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/Management. None appeared for Respondent No. 1/Employee. 2. Petitioner is filed challenging order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai Region, Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No. 5 of 2010 by which appeal filed by Respondent No.1/Employee is allowed setting aside termination order dated 15.01.2010 and directing the Petitioner/Management to reinstate the Respondent No.1 on the post of ‘peon’ with continuity of service benefits but without back-wages. The Petitioner/Management is set at liberty to conduct Departmental Enquiry against the Respondent No.1 afresh for the same charges by following procedure of law under Rule 36 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 ('the said Rules' for short) framed under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘the said Act’ for short). Navnath Waghmare 1 NAVNATH SITARAM WAGHMARE Digitally signed by NAVNATH SITARAM WAGHMARE Date: 2026.08.21 18:56:15 +0530 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc BRIEF BACKGROUND 3. Petitioner is an Educational Institute. The Respondent No.1 was appointed as Peon in the school which is run by the Petitioner, with effect from 13.06.1995. The Petitioner received a letter from Police Sub Inspector on 25.01.2009 informing that Respondent No.1 /Employee has been arrested on the charges of conspiring with a co-accused/builder in connection with preparing fabricated documents for receiving home-loan amounts and in connection with charges of misappropriation. The Petitioner issued show-cause notice dated 30.03.2009 informing Respondent No. 1 that (i) he has remained absent from duties from November 2008, (ii) Headmaster of the school has received letter from a bank along with attachment order of salary of Respondent No.1, (iii) Respondent No. 1 has misrepresented that he was the Senior Clerk of the school when he was a peon, (iv) written complaints have been received from the parents of the students stating that he has grabbed amounts from the parents for the purpose of depositing in school office, however never deposited it. The show-cause notice stated that the actions of Respondent No.1 are of such magnitude that the management no longer trusts him and therefore he was called upon to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. 4. The Respondent No.1 replied the show cause notice. 5. The Petitioner-Institute constituted an Enquiry Committee and it was informed to the Respondent No.1 by letter dated 29.04.2009. 6. On 05.06.2009, statement of allegations as well as chargesheet was sent to Respondent No. 1. 7. From 29.04.2009 till 12.09.2009, as many as 7 letters were sent Navnath Waghmare 2 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc to the Respondent No. 1 calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry Committee and present his case with supporting evidence. However, Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. Since he was not participating, evidence was led before the Enquiry Committee and finally a communication dated 09.10.2009 was issued to the Respondent No. 1 again calling upon him to appear before Committee and defend his case. However, he did not turn up. 8. The Enquiry Committee issued its report holding that the Respondent No.1 deserves punishment of dismissal from the service and recommended accordingly. 9. The Petitioner/ Management thereafter terminated the services of Respondent No.1 by termination letter dated 15.01.2010. 10. The Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.5 of 2010 in the Tribunal challenging the termination order. He contended that the enquiry conducted against him is not as per provisions of the said Act and said Rules. He contended that the allegations in the statement as well as charges are vague. It was further contended that he was not given documents along with chargesheet. It was contented that principles of natural justice had not been followed. He alleged harassment. 11. The Petitioner/Management filed written statement contending inter alia that the Enquiry has been conducted in accordance with law and applicable rules. It is denied that principles of natural justice were not followed. It contented that the Respondent No.1 has committed serious misconduct including misappropriation of money. It contended that despite clear knowledge of the enquiry being conducted, the Respondent No.1 has chosen not to participate in the same and prejudice is not at all proved. It contented that since the Respondent Navnath Waghmare 3 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc No.1 did not participate in the enquiry, it has been conducted ex parte having no option left. It also pointed out that parents of students have lodged written complaints alleging misappropriation of fees amount. 12. The tribunal after hearing the appeal on merits has allowed it as explained above. SUBMISSIONS 13. Learned counsel Mr. Helekar appearing for the Petitioner /Management submitted that in the entire appeal memo, the Respondent No.1 has not contended anything about the prejudice caused to him. He submitted that receipt of statement of allegations as well as chargesheet is admitted; however, since the Respondent No.1 did not participate at all and did not respond to any of the letters, he can not be permitted to contend alleged breach of principle of natural justice. He submitted that Respondent No.1 never demanded any document specifically. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 has not nominated any person to be part of Enquiry Committee as required under Rule 36(3) and 36(4) of the said Rules, despite request made by letter dated 29.04.2009. He relied on following judgments in support of his case as under : i) Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee Management of MM Degree College and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 281 ii) Thapar Education Society and Anr. Vs. Shyam Maroti Bhasarkar and Ors. [1997(3) Mh.L.J. 709]. in support of his case. 14. Record shows that the petition was admitted on 13.01.2012 and the impugned order was stayed by this Court. Notice was duly served upon Respondent No.1 and in fact, an advocate had filed vakalatnama for Respondent No.1 whose name is appearing on the cause list today. Navnath Waghmare 4 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc Despite such position, nobody is appearing for Respondent No. 1. REASONS AND CONCLUSION 15. I have considered the submissions and perused the record including the impugned order. 16. The Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the Respondent No.1 has not explained as to why he remained absent before the Enquiry Committee. The Tribunal has in fact noted in paragraph No.23 that it cannot pick up technical words from the Rules and adopt hypertechnical approach to hold that Enquiry was vitiated when there is no actual prejudice caused to the delinquent under facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal was also conscious of the law laid down by this Court that the delinquent has to prove and establish what actual prejudice is caused; otherwise, the enquiry cannot be vitiated for technical reasons. 17. The tribunal found that provisions under Rule 37(4) of the said Rules are not followed resulting in prejudice being caused to Respondent No.1 by non-supply of copies of summery of enquiry proceedings and copies of evidence collected before Enquiry Committee. 18. Record shows that even since show-cause notice dated 30.03.2009 was issued and the statement of allegations as well as charge sheet was sent to Respondent No.1, as many as 7 letters were written to the Respondent No.1 which were received by him and the acknowledgments are produced on record. Even during the proceedings of enquiry, notices were sent to the Respondent No.1 on 22.08.2007, 18.10.2008, 22.10.2008, 27.11.2008, 28.11.2008, 08.12.2008, 6.01.2009 and 12.01.2009. Final letter dated 09.10.2009 records that in spite of sufficient time being given to the Respondent No.1, he has failed and neglected to respond; however, he was again called upon to Navnath Waghmare 5 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc attend and participate in the enquiry. 19. It is clear from the aforesaid dates that more than required intimations were given to Respondent No.1 who has clearly chosen not to respond and not to remain present before the Enquiry Committee. Such attitude of an employee is nothing but an attempt to dodge the process of law which cannot be countenanced. It does not lie in the mouth of a party, who does not respond to the notices and intimations calling upon him to participate in enquiry, that principles of natural justice are not followed. Nothing stopped Respondent No.1 from demanding specific documents, if non-supply of such documents were important in his opinion for the decision on merits. That is if at all he chose to appear before the Committee. 20. The Tribunal, despite being conscious of the fact that no submissions were advanced explaining absence before the Enquiry Committee, has found fault with the proceedings of Enquiry Committee holding that necessary documents were not sent. 21. In Indra Bhanu Gaur (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a case of termination and prejudice caused to the delinquent, held that 'it is only a person who is ready and willing to avail the opportunity given, who can make a grievance about denial of any opportunity and not a person who despite repeated opportunities given and indulgence shown, exhibits defiance and total indifference to cooperation.' These observations clearly support the case of the Petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case. 22. Also, in Thapar Education Society (Supra), while considering Rule 33, 36 and 37 of the said Rules, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that non-supply of documents would be innocuous if the Navnath Waghmare 6 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc employee could not show prejudice on account of non-supply of the document. 23. In the present case, the contention raised about non-supply of documents is nothing but a self-suiting argument raised by the Respondent No. 1, without actually participating in the enquiry and showing what was the prejudice caused to him. A party who chooses not to respond to notices and does not remain present before the Enquiry Committee, cannot turn around and contend that documents were not supplied, unless actual prejudice is established. In the present case, in my considered view, prejudice is not at all established as there has been complete absence before the Enquiry Committee. 24. At the cost of repetition, it is important to note that in the appeal memo itself the Respondent No.1 has admitted receipt of show cause notice and receipt of statement of allegations and receipt of charge- sheet. In the teeth of such admissions, the Respondent No.1 fully aware that there are allegations against him and he has been charged with serious charges. He has chosen to remain absent. He was therefore required to establish clear prejudice, despite his non-appearance before the Enquiry Committee. 25. The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion about the merits of the allegations and has in fact given liberty to the Petitioner - management to conduct departmental inquiry afresh. The Tribunal has not granted any back-wages to the Respondent No.1 and the order of reinstatement has remained stayed since 13.01.2012 till date throughout. 26. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons indicated above, in my view, the view taken by the Tribunal about non compliance Navnath Waghmare 7 8-WP-8468-2011 C2.doc with Rule 37(4) is perverse, in absence of real prejudice proved. In that view of the matter, interference is required. 27. Writ Petition is therefore allowed. Impugned order dated 14.07.2011 is quashed and set aside. Appeal No. 5 of 2010 filed by Respondent No. 1 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. 28. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) Navnath Waghmare 8