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