The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which had remanded a service dispute to the School Tribunal after considering only a single legal point. The Apex Court observed that the High Court “faltered” by focusing on just one decisive point while failing to deal with other issues raised by the parties.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeals filed by Hemlata Eknath Pise against the High Court’s decision to remand the matter to the School Tribunal for a fresh decision.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a disciplinary action taken by the first respondent, Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha, Waddhamna, against the appellant, Hemlata Eknath Pise, resulting in her dismissal from service.
The appellant challenged her dismissal before the School Tribunal, Nagpur. On August 8, 2019, the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order and granted reinstatement with consequential benefits to the appellant.
Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, the management (Respondent No. 1) filed a Writ Petition (No. 5899 of 2019) before the Bombay High Court. By an impugned judgment dated September 5, 2024, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered a remand to the School Tribunal to consider the claim afresh.
The High Court’s decision was based on a “solitary point” raised by the management: that the Tribunal had not looked into all records and proceedings, specifically the resolution authorizing the Secretary to initiate proceedings against the appellant.
Following this, the appellant filed a review petition, contending that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in “gross breach of the principles of natural justice.” She highlighted that she was not allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and that the Inquiry Officer had abruptly closed proceedings on August 1, 2017. The High Court rejected the review petition on September 25, 2024.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court’s approach of deciding the writ petition based solely on the issue of the Secretary’s authorization.
The Bench observed:
“In our considered view, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court ought not to have remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh decision based on its consideration of only the sole point noticed above.”
The Court emphasized that even if the Secretary was authorized to issue the charge sheet, other critical issues remained. The High Court should have considered “whether or not the inquiry suffered from breach of principles of natural justice, as claimed, and also as to whether the findings of the Tribunal were justified.”
Elaborating on the duty of the High Court to address all issues, the Supreme Court stated:
“Law is pretty well-settled that when several issues arise for being answered by a Court in the facts of a given case, ideally, disposal thereof ought to be preceded by recording the Court’s answers to each of such issues with reasons rather than the decision of the Court focusing on just one decisive point.”
The Bench noted that a comprehensive decision respects the rights of litigants and benefits the appellate court if an appeal is filed.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s failure to deal with other issues was a “fundamental flaw vitiating its order.” Consequently, the Apex Court set aside both the impugned order dated September 5, 2024, and the review order dated September 25, 2024.
Instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal, the Supreme Court remanded the Writ Petition back to the High Court for fresh consideration.
Noting that the appellant has already reached the age of superannuation and reinstatement is no longer possible, the Supreme Court framed the primary questions for the High Court to decide:
- Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action taken by the respondent.
- Whether the appellant would be entitled to back wages and retiral benefits, should the first question be decided against the respondent.
The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign the matter to a roster Bench for disposal, preferably within four months.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Hemlata Eknath Pise vs. Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 1558-1559/2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27266-67/2024)
- Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
