In a significant pronouncement
that reinforces the fundamental principles of judicial review, the Supreme
Court of India has set aside a Bombay High Court order that remanded a service
dispute to the School Tribunal without deciding all the issues raised by the
parties. The judgment in Hemlata Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha
is a powerful reminder that courts cannot wear blinkers while adjudicating
disputes. When multiple issues arise for consideration, the judicial duty is to
decide all of them—not merely pick one, declare it decisive, and relegate the
parties to yet another round of litigation.
This case, arising from the
dismissal of a teacher from a private school, traversed through disciplinary
proceedings, a Tribunal order of reinstatement, a High Court writ petition
resulting in remand, a rejected review petition, and finally, the Supreme Court.
At every stage, the appellant-teacher sought adjudication of her fundamental
grievance: she was denied the opportunity to complete cross-examination of
witnesses before the inquiry officer abruptly closed the proceedings. The High
Court, however, remanded the matter on a solitary procedural point—the validity
of the resolution authorizing the Secretary to initiate proceedings—without
even adverting to the glaring violation of natural justice.
The Supreme Court has now firmly
corrected this error, holding that piecemeal adjudication frustrates the very
purpose of judicial review and that courts must answer all substantial issues
to impart finality and avoid endless litigation.
I. The Factual Matrix: A Teacher, a Dismissal,
and a Denied Opportunity to Cross-Examine
The appellant, Hemlata Eknath
Pise, was employed as a teacher by the first respondent, Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya
Sanstha, which runs an educational institution. Disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against her, culminating in an order of dismissal from service.
Aggrieved, the appellant
approached the School Tribunal, Nagpur, constituted under the relevant
Maharashtra Education Act. The Tribunal, after examining the records and
proceedings, passed an order on 8th August, 2019, setting aside the dismissal
order and directing reinstatement with consequential benefits.
The Tribunal's order was grounded
in a finding that the charges against the appellant were not proven. More
critically, the Tribunal took note of a serious procedural irregularity in the
conduct of the departmental inquiry. The appellant's cross-examination of the
management's main witness was in progress on 31st July, 2017, and was deferred
to the next date. However, on 1st August, 2017, the Inquiry Officer abruptly
closed the proceedings, denying the appellant the opportunity to:
a. Complete the cross-examination
of the main witness; and
b. Cross-examine the other
prosecution witnesses.
This, the Tribunal held, was a gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and vitiated the entire
disciplinary proceedings.
II. The High Court's Intervention: A Remand on
a Solitary Point
The first respondent (the
management) challenged the Tribunal's order before the Bombay High Court,
Nagpur Bench, by way of a writ petition. The High Court, by its impugned
judgment dated 5th September, 2024, allowed the writ petition and remanded the
matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Crucially, the High Court considered
only one solitary point raised by the management: whether the Tribunal had
examined the resolution authorizing the Secretary to initiate proceedings
against the appellant. Recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needed to
"revisit the matter" on this aspect, the High Court did not examine
any other issue—including the appellant's claim of denial of opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses and the consequent breach of natural justice.
The High Court's order, in its
entirety, focused on this singular procedural aspect and remanded the matter
without so much as a prima facie observation on the other substantial questions
raised by the appellant.
III. The Review Petition: A Cry in the
Wilderness
Crestfallen but undeterred, the
appellant filed a review petition before the High Court. She specifically
contended that:
1.The disciplinary proceedings
were conducted in gross breach of the principles of natural justice.
2.She was not allowed to
cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses.
3.The cross-examination of the
main witness was deliberately cut short by the Inquiry Officer on 1st August,
2017, despite it being in progress on the previous date.
4.The Tribunal had categorically
found the charges not proven, a finding of fact that ought not to have been
interfered with on a solitary procedural ground.
5.The remand would cause grave
prejudice and further delay to a teacher who had already been fighting for
justice for years.
The High Court, however, dismissed
the review petition on 25th September, 2024, without effectively addressing
these core concerns.
It was thus that the appellant
approached the Supreme Court.
IV. The Supreme Court's Analysis: A
Fundamental Flaw in Judicial Approach
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice
Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, found the High Court's
approach to be fundamentally flawed and legally unsustainable. The Court's
analysis proceeds on multiple levels.
I. The Duty to Decide All Issues
The Supreme Court began by
restating a foundational principle of judicial adjudication:
"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."
This principle is not merely
procedural; it is substantive and constitutional. A judgment that selectively
picks one issue, declares it decisive, and ignores all others, is not a
judgment at all—it is an abdication of judicial duty.
The Court identified three key
rationales for this requirement:
a. Clarity and Completeness:
A judgment that answers all issues provides a complete picture of the court's
reasoning and leaves no ambiguity about what has been decided and what remains
open.
b. Finality: Comprehensive
adjudication brings litigation to a close rather than perpetuating it through
multiple rounds of remand and reconsideration.
c. Respect for the Rights of
Parties: Parties who approach the court with multiple grievances are
entitled to have each grievance addressed. To ignore substantial issues and
decide on a minor procedural point is to deny justice, not to dispense it.
II. The High Court's Error: The Blinkered
Vision
Applying this principle, the
Supreme Court held that the High Court "appears to have faltered in
deciding only one single point while not dealing with the others." This,
the Court held, was "a fundamental flaw vitiating its order."
The Court noted that the
appellant had, both before the High Court and in the review petition, specifically
and repeatedly raised the issue of denial of opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses. This was not a peripheral or inconsequential grievance. It went to
the very root of the validity of the disciplinary proceedings. If true, it
would constitute a manifest violation of natural justice, rendering the entire
inquiry null and void.
Despite this, the High Court did
not even advert to this contention. It did not reject it; it did not accept it;
it simply ignored it. This, the Supreme Court held, was impermissible.
III. The Problem with Selective Remand
The Court implicitly criticized
the High Court's approach of remanding the matter on a solitary point while
keeping all other issues untouched. Such selective remands:
a. Proliferate litigation by
ensuring that the matter returns to the High Court after the Tribunal
re-decides the limited point.
b. Cause grave prejudice to the
party who has already secured a favourable order from the Tribunal on multiple
grounds.
c. Frustrate the object of
expeditious dispute resolution, particularly in service matters where the
employee has already reached the age of superannuation.
d. Encourage issue-splitting by
litigants who seek to avoid adverse findings on other points.
The Supreme Court held that once
the High Court decided to interfere with the Tribunal's order, it ought to have
examined all the grounds of challenge and defence and rendered its findings on
each. Failing to do so was not a mere irregularity; it was a jurisdictional
error.
V. The Supreme Court's Directions: A Balanced
Remand with Clear Parameters
Having found the High Court's
order unsustainable, the Supreme Court could have:
a. Restored the Tribunal's order
if it found the remand wholly unjustified; or
b. Remanded the matter back to
the High Court with directions to decide all issues afresh.
The Court chose the latter
course, but with clear and binding parameters to prevent further protraction.
I. Setting Aside the Impugned Orders
The Supreme Court set aside both
orders of the High Court:
a. The judgment dated 5th
September, 2024 allowing the writ petition and remanding the matter; and
b. The order dated 25th
September, 2024 dismissing the review petition.
II. Remand to the High Court for Fresh
Consideration
The Court ordered a remand of the
writ petition to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the
claims and defences of the parties. Crucially, this was not an open remand; it
was accompanied by specific directions on what the High Court must decide.
III. The Questions to Be Decided
The Supreme Court explicitly
framed the primary questions that must necessarily arise for decision before
the High Court:
"(i) whether the Tribunal
was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action taken by the first
respondent against the appellant; and
(ii) whether the appellant would
be entitled to back wages as well as retiral benefits, should the first
question be decided against the first respondent."
These questions, the Court held, must
be answered. The High Court cannot again avoid them by focusing on a solitary
procedural point.
IV. Time-Bound Disposal
Recognizing that the appellant
has already reached the age of superannuation and that there is no question of
her reinstatement in service at this stage, the Supreme Court directed time-bound
disposal. It requested the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign the
writ petition to the roster Bench for consideration and disposal preferably
within a period of four months of such assignment.
V. All Questions Kept Open
The Court clarified that all
questions on fact and law are kept open for the parties to urge before the High
Court. No observations made in the Supreme Court's judgment shall prejudice
either party at the stage of fresh consideration.
VI. Mediation Option
In a characteristic display of
judicial pragmatism, the Court also left it open to the parties to explore a
mediated settlement, noting that no such settlement could be reached before the
Supreme Court.
VI. The Underlying Grievance: Natural Justice
and the Right to Cross-Examine
While the Supreme Court did not
finally adjudicate upon the appellant's claim of denial of opportunity to
cross-examine, the judgment implicitly recognizes the gravity of such a
grievance.
The right to cross-examine
witnesses is not a mere technical formality; it is a fundamental facet of
natural justice. In disciplinary proceedings, particularly those leading to
dismissal from service, the delinquent employee must be afforded a fair and
real opportunity to test the veracity of the evidence led against her. To
abruptly close proceedings when cross-examination is in progress is to render
the inquiry a charade.
The High Court's failure to even
notice this grievance is, therefore, not a minor omission. It is a failure to
discharge the constitutional obligation of judicial review.
VII. Key Takeaways: The Law Reaffirmed
1.Adjudication Must Be
Holistic: Courts cannot decide cases by cherry-picking one issue and
ignoring others. Every substantial issue raised by the parties must be
considered and decided, or at least expressly noticed and dealt with.
2.Piecemeal Remands Are
Disfavoured: Remanding a matter on a solitary point while keeping all other
issues pending is a disservice to the cause of justice. It prolongs litigation,
burdens judicial dockets, and prejudices the party who has already secured
findings in its favour.
3.Natural Justice Violations
Go to the Root: A plea of denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
is not a peripheral technicality. It goes to the very validity of the inquiry.
Such a plea cannot be ignored or brushed aside.
4.Reasons Are the Hallmark of
Judicial Decisions: A judgment that does not record reasons for its
conclusions—particularly when it overturns a well-reasoned order of a
subordinate tribunal—is no judgment in the eyes of law.
5.Service Disputes Require
Expedition: Where an employee has already reached the age of superannuation,
courts must prioritize the resolution of pending disputes. Delay in such
matters effectively denies the employee the fruits of any favourable
adjudication.
6.The Supreme Court’s Patience
Has Limits: This judgment also signals the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to
tolerate casual adjudication by High Courts. By setting aside the order and
remanding with specific directions, the Court has reminded all judicial fora
that constitutional courts exist to render justice, not to perpetuate
litigation.
VIII. Conclusion: Justice Restored to the
Rails
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hemlata
Eknath Pise is a classic illustration of the appellate court correcting a
jurisdictional error committed by the High Court. It does not finally decide
the rights of the parties; it does not hold that the appellant must succeed.
What it does is far more fundamental: it restores the dispute to the rails of
proper judicial adjudication.
The High Court, in its anxiety to
remand the matter on a solitary point, derailed the entire process. The
Tribunal’s well-reasoned order was set aside without any examination of its
findings on the merits of the charges or the violation of natural justice. The
appellant’s specific grievance was ignored. The management’s procedural
objection was elevated to a decisive status it did not deserve.
The Supreme Court has now put the
train back on the tracks. The High Court must now decide the writ petition afresh,
fully, and expeditiously. It must answer all the questions that arise. It
cannot again take refuge in selective adjudication.
For the appellant, who has spent
years in litigation and has now superannuated, this judgment offers hope—not of
immediate relief, but of a fair and complete consideration of her case. For the
legal system, it is a reminder that judicial review is not a game of procedural
hide-and-seek. It is a solemn duty to examine every substantial grievance and
render justice according to law.
Judgment Name: Hemlata
Eknath Pise v. Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors. (Civil
Appeal Nos. 1558-1559/2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27266-67/2024), Supreme
Court of India, decided on February 11, 2026.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
0 Comments