Nagpur: The Supreme Court recently set aside an order of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court in a teacher dismissal dispute, holding that the latter committed a “fundamental flaw” by limiting its decision to one decisive point without examining all questions raised by the parties. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said courts are required to provide reasoned findings.The Nagpur-based teacher had challenged her dismissal from service by Shubham Bahu-Uddeshiya Sanstha in Waddhamna in May 2017 for alleged misconduct. In August 2019, the School Tribunal in Nagpur set aside the dismissal order and directed her reinstatement with consequential benefits.In September 2024, the Nagpur bench of Bombay HC allowed a petition filed by the institution and remanded the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration. The HC observed that the tribunal did not examine certain records, particularly a resolution authorising the institution’s secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the teacher.The teacher later sought a review in HC, arguing that the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The teacher contended that she was not allowed to complete the cross-examination of the management’s key witness and other witnesses.According to her plea, cross-examination of the main witness was in progress on July 31, 2017, but the inquiry officer abruptly closed the proceedings on August 1, 2017. The HC rejected the review petition in September 2024.The apex court held that the HC should have examined all issues raised in the case, including the alleged breach of natural justice and the correctness of the tribunal’s findings.The SC said the HC “appears to have faltered” by deciding the matter only on the question of whether the institution’s secretary had the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings.Setting aside both the HC’s order allowing the institution’s plea and the order rejecting the teacher’s review petition, the SC remanded the matter to the HC for fresh consideration after examining all claims and defences of the parties.The judges also noted that the teacher already attained the age of superannuation, making reinstatement in service unlikely. It said the HC would now need to determine whether the tribunal was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action and whether the teacher would be entitled to back wages and retiral benefits. The apex court requested the Bombay HC chief justice to assign the petition to an appropriate bench and dispose of it preferably within four months. It also left open the possibility for the parties to explore a mediated settlement.# Key takeaways of SC rulingThe HC decided the matter by focusing mainly on whether the institution’s secretary was authorised to initiate disciplinary proceedingsCourts must address all issues in dispute and provide reasoned findings instead of deciding cases on a single decisive pointHC directed to reconsider the writ petition afresh after examining all claims and defences of the partiesNoted allegations that the disciplinary inquiry violated principles of natural justice, including denial of full cross-examinationSince the teacher already reached superannuation, reinstatement is unlikelyHC will now examine whether the tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal and whether the teacher is entitled to back wages and retiral benefitsChief Justice of Bombay HC requested to assign the case to a roster bench and dispose of it preferably within 4 monthsLeft open the option for the parties to explore a mediated settlement
