The Bombay High Court upheld termination of a probationary assistant teacher over inappropriate messages with a student. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held such conduct unbecoming, allowing school management to end probation under MEPS Act Section 5(3) without full departmental enquiry.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has upheld the termination of a probationary Assistant Teacher (Shikshan Sevak) whose services were discontinued following complaints of inappropriate instant messaging with a girl student.
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the teacher, ruling that “conduct unbecoming of a school teacher is not satisfactory behaviour” and that the School Management was entitled to terminate the probationer under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) without a full departmental enquiry.
Background of the Case:
The Petitioner, Gavit Gulabsing Suka, was appointed as a probationary Assistant Teacher at the New English School & Junior College, Mhasala, on February 29, 2020. His three-year probation period was scheduled to end on February 28, 2023. On December 23, 2022, the School received complaints from the parents of a girl student alleging that the Petitioner was in “instant messaging contact with the student, and that the exchange of messages constituted harassment.”
On the same day, the Petitioner issued a written apology to the Principal, confirming his electronic contact with the student. The Principal submitted a report to the Management on December 28, 2022. The judgment noted that “local unrest is said to have occurred with a mob having gathered over the matter, necessitating the Principal having to intercede and save the Petitioner.”
Consequently, on January 31, 2023, the Management terminated the Petitioner’s probationary engagement with effect from February 1, 2023, providing payment in lieu of one month’s notice. The Petitioner challenged this termination before the School Tribunal, Mumbai, which dismissed his appeal on August 20, 2024. He subsequently approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, challenged the termination on two primary grounds: Violation of Natural Justice: He contended that no proper enquiry or show-cause notice was issued prior to termination, depriving him of a chance to explain himself.
READ ALSO: Tripura’s 700 Teachers Challenge ‘Unlawful’ Termination Orders in Supreme Court
Deemed Permanency: He argued that by operation of law, he became a permanent employee before the notice period would potentially expire, and thus the procedure for terminating a permanent teacher should have been applied. He also invoked Rule 15(6) of the MEPS Rules, regarding objective assessment of performance.
The Respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, defended the termination, relying on the Petitioner’s written apology and the statutory provisions governing probationers.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Sundaresan examined Section 5 of the MEPS Act, specifically Section 5(3), which empowers Management to terminate a probationer’s services if their work or behavior is “not satisfactory,” subject to one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof.
The Court observed that while the Management’s opinion must be “objective, informed by reason, and cannot be arbitrary,” the reliance on Rule 15(6) regarding classroom performance was misplaced.
The Court noted,
“The opinion that his probation must not be continued is not at all based on the work and performance… On the contrary, what is apparent is that the termination is based on discomfort with behaviour outside the classroom.” On “Unsatisfactory Behaviour” and “Zero-Tolerance”
Addressing the nature of the allegations, the Court observed that the issue involved was serious, concerning a “teacher in his 30s being in touch with students with romantic messages between them on WhatsApp.” While clarifying that the Court was not finding stigma regarding the content of the messages (as they were not on record), Justice Sundaresan emphasized the Petitioner’s un-retracted apology.
The Court held,
“In that background, in my opinion, the Management is entitled to adopt a zero-tolerance policy in the specific factual matrix of the case and avoid future crisis, taking into account that the Petitioner was on probation and statutorily, the Management was entitled to terminate the probation with one month’s notice or payment in lieu of the notice.”
The Court explicitly stated that the Management had sufficient material to form a reasonable opinion that “conduct unbecoming of a school teacher is not satisfactory behaviour.”
Distinguishing the case from Progressive Education Society & Anr. v. Rajendra & Anr., the Court held that since the termination was non-stigmatic and based on admitted facts, a detailed enquiry was not required.
READ ALSO: [Illegal Teacher Termination Case] Supreme Court Issues Notice to Tripura Government
The Court also distinguished the Supreme Court’s decision in The Manager, S.M.U.P. School & Ors. Vs. M. Noushad & Ors. and the High Court’s ruling in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. V/s. Smt. Taramati Santosh Taji. The Court reasoned that unlike cases involving vague or subjective allegations (such as mental instability or rude conduct) which require proof, the present case involved “proven and admitted contact by a teacher with students outside the classroom using instant messaging.”
Justice Sundaresan noted,
“In my opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, without stigma being attached to the Petitioner, the Petitioner has been given a soft landing within the ambit of Section 5(3).”
The Court rejected the argument that the Petitioner became a permanent employee because the notice period extended beyond the probation end date.
The Court ruled,
“The statutory right to terminate can be exercised during the probation period… Until the last day of the probation period, such right would exist, indeed to be exercised in accordance with law.”
The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the School Tribunal’s judgment. The Court concluded that the admitted facts provided a reasonable basis for the Management’s objective assessment that the probationer’s behavior was unsatisfactory, justifying termination without a full-blown departmental enquiry.
Case Title: Shri Gavit Gulabsing Suka vs. Shri Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha (Kolhapur) & Ors. WP No. 16771 of 2024