Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Withdrawal of Appeals Does Not Equate to Abandonment : Bombay High Court Sets Precedent by Reinstating Wrongfully Terminated Headmaster

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court overturns Tribunal decision, reinstates petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service.

The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinstated Shri Patil Samgonda Namgonda as headmaster, overturning the School Tribunal’s decision which dismissed his appeal on procedural grounds. Justice Gauri Godse’s judgment emphasized that the withdrawal of earlier appeals without permission does not necessarily imply abandonment of the claim, particularly in cases of wrongful termination.

The petitioner, Shri Patil Samgonda Namgonda, was appointed as headmaster by the respondent management on June 19, 1991. On October 6, 2001, he was abruptly removed from his position, prompting him to file multiple appeals. Initially, the School Tribunal allowed his appeal, ordering reinstatement with full back wages, but this decision was subsequently remanded by the High Court for a fresh hearing. The Tribunal later dismissed his appeal, citing procedural bars under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

Justice Gauri Godse highlighted the Tribunal’s error in applying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC to the petitioner’s appeal. “Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC, which deals with withdrawal and adjustment of suits, is not per se applicable to appeals, especially under Section 9 of the MEPS Act,” the judgment stated. The right to file an appeal is distinct from the right to file a suit, and withdrawal of an appeal does not inherently mean the abandonment of the underlying claim.

The court observed that abandonment must be explicitly established, either expressly or impliedly, through conduct. “The persistent steps taken by the petitioner to save his job demonstrate a clear intent to not abandon his claim,” noted Justice Godse. The petitioner’s immediate actions following each setback reflected his ongoing pursuit of reinstatement.

On the substantive issue of the petitioner’s termination, the court found that the termination was illegal. The School Tribunal’s initial findings, which were unchallenged, affirmed the petitioner’s status as a permanent employee and the management’s failure to follow due process. “The petitioner is entitled to full back wages with continuity of service and all consequential benefits,” the judgment concluded.

Justice Gauri Godse remarked, “Abandonment cannot be readily inferred. One can say there is an implied abandonment when the admitted or proved facts are so clinching and convincing that the only inference which can be drawn is of abandonment. This is not the case here.”

The High Court’s ruling reinstates Shri Patil Samgonda Namgonda with full back wages and continuity of service, setting a significant precedent on the interpretation of procedural rules concerning withdrawal of appeals. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring fair treatment for wrongfully terminated employees. The management has been directed to comply with the order within two months, marking a critical victory for the petitioner and reinforcing legal protections for employees under the MEPS Act.

 

Date of Decision: June 12, 2024

Shri Patil Samgonda Namgonda vs. State of Maharashtra and Others

Similar News