Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act

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