A. Writ Jurisdiction – Remand – Duty to Decide All Material Issues
(Paras 8–10)
Where multiple substantial issues arise in a writ petition, the High Court must:
-
Consider and record findings on all material issues,
-
Provide reasons for each determination,
-
Avoid deciding the matter on a solitary technical point while ignoring other substantial grounds.
Failure to do so constitutes a fundamental flaw vitiating the order.
B. Judicial Discipline – Reasoned Adjudication
(Para 9)
Law is settled that:
Courts must answer each issue arising in the case with reasons rather than deciding on a single decisive point.
This ensures:
-
Clarity,
-
Finality,
-
Fairness to litigants,
-
Assistance to appellate courts.
C. Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Duty of High Court
(Paras 5, 8)
When challenge to disciplinary action includes:
-
Allegation of breach of principles of natural justice,
-
Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses,
-
Tribunal findings on merits,
High Court must examine such claims before remanding solely on a procedural authorization issue.
D. Remand by Supreme Court – Scope
(Paras 10–13)
Supreme Court set aside High Court’s remand order and:
-
Remanded writ petition to High Court for fresh adjudication,
-
Kept all questions of fact and law open,
-
Identified core issues for determination.
E. Superannuation – Relief Modified
(Para 11)
Where employee has attained superannuation:
-
Reinstatement no longer survives,
-
Issues shift to:
-
Validity of Tribunal’s interference,
-
Entitlement to back wages,
-
Entitlement to retiral benefits.
-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. Parties
-
Appellant: Hemlata Eknath Pise (employee dismissed from service).
-
Respondent No. 1: Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna (management).
-
Tribunal: School Tribunal, Nagpur.
-
High Court: Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench).
II. Tribunal Proceedings
The School Tribunal:
-
Set aside dismissal order (8 August 2019),
-
Directed reinstatement with consequential benefits.
III. High Court Proceedings
Management filed Writ Petition No. 5899/2019.
High Court allowed writ petition (5 September 2024) and:
-
Quashed Tribunal’s order,
-
Remanded matter to Tribunal,
-
Based solely on one ground:
-
Tribunal failed to examine resolution authorizing Secretary to initiate proceedings.
-
High Court did not examine:
-
Alleged breach of natural justice,
-
Whether cross-examination was denied,
-
Whether charges were proved,
-
Whether Tribunal’s findings were justified.
IV. Review Petition
Appellant filed review (MRA No. 838/2024):
Raised:
-
Inquiry officer abruptly closed cross-examination,
-
Main management witness not fully cross-examined,
-
Breach of natural justice,
-
Tribunal had found charges not proved.
Review rejected (25 September 2024).
ISSUES BEFORE SUPREME COURT
-
Whether High Court erred in remanding matter on a single procedural ground?
-
Whether High Court was required to consider all material issues?
-
Whether remand was legally sustainable?
ANALYSIS
I. Error in High Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court held:
High Court considered only:
-
Whether Secretary was authorized to issue charge-sheet.
But failed to consider:
-
Whether inquiry was vitiated by denial of cross-examination,
-
Whether natural justice was breached,
-
Whether Tribunal’s findings were justified.
This was a serious adjudicatory defect.
II. Principle: Comprehensive Issue Determination
Para 9 lays down a significant procedural doctrine:
When several issues arise, Court must:
-
Answer each issue,
-
Provide reasons,
-
Avoid selective adjudication.
This principle serves:
-
Litigant’s right to reasoned decision,
-
Appellate efficiency,
-
Judicial accountability.
III. Breach of Natural Justice – Serious Allegation
The appellant alleged:
-
Cross-examination of main witness was ongoing on 31 July 2017,
-
Inquiry officer abruptly closed proceedings on 1 August 2017,
-
No opportunity to cross-examine remaining witnesses.
Such allegations go to the root of:
-
Fair hearing,
-
Audi alteram partem,
-
Validity of disciplinary proceedings.
High Court ignored these.
IV. Improper Remand
The High Court:
-
Remanded matter without deciding substantive grounds,
-
Focused narrowly on authorization resolution.
Supreme Court held:
This selective adjudication vitiates the order.
V. Superannuation – Modified Relief Landscape
Appellant has reached superannuation.
Therefore:
-
Reinstatement no longer survives.
-
High Court must determine:
(i) Was Tribunal justified in interfering with disciplinary action?
(ii) Is appellant entitled to back wages and retiral benefits?
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
When multiple substantial issues arise, High Court must adjudicate each issue with reasons.
-
Remanding a matter on a solitary technical ground while ignoring allegations of breach of natural justice and merits is legally unsustainable.
-
Failure to provide reasoned findings on all material issues constitutes a fundamental flaw.
-
In cases where reinstatement becomes infructuous due to superannuation, court must determine entitlement to back wages and retiral benefits.
