advocatemmmohan

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.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2026