Hemlata Eknath Pise vs Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha, Waddhamna & Ors.

REPORTABLE 2026 INSC 147 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos.1558-1559/2026 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.27266-67/2024]

Hemlata Eknath Pise Appellant

VERSUS

Shubham Bahu-uddeshiya Sanstha Waddhamna & Ors. Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur by the impugned judgment and order dated 05th September,

2024 allowed a writ petition1 filed by the first respondent. A remand

was ordered to the School Tribunal, Nagpur 2 to consider afresh the

claim of the appellant for reinstatement in service upon quashing of

the final order of dismissal from service.

3. Incidentally, the Tribunal vide its order dated 8th August, 2019

had set aside an order of the first respondent dismissing the

appellant from service and granted reinstatement together with Signature Not Verified

consequential benefits to her.

Digitally signed by rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.02.12 17:07:51 IST Reason: 1 Writ Petition No.5899 of 2019 2 Tribunal

1

4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 05th September, 2024

reveals that the High Court considered a solitary point raised on

behalf of the first respondent, i.e., the Tribunal had not looked into

all the records and proceedings more particularly the resolution

authorizing the Secretary thereof to initiate proceedings against the

appellant, and upon recording a satisfaction that the Tribunal needs

to revisit the matter and without looking into any other point,

expressed the view that a remand was indeed called for. It was

accordingly ordered, while quashing the Tribunal’s aforesaid order

dated 8th August, 2019.

5. Crestfallen, the appellant applied for a review of the order

dated 05th September, 20243, contending that the disciplinary

proceedings that were initiated had been conducted in gross breach

of the principles of natural justice. She highlighted not being allowed

to cross examine all the prosecution witnesses. In fact, the High

Court’s attention was sought to be drawn to the factual position that

cross examination of the main witness of the management was in

progress on 31st July, 2017, and it was deferred till the next date

when it was supposed to resume; however, on 1st August, 2017, the

inquiry officer abruptly closed the proceedings without granting

opportunity to the appellant to complete cross-examination of the

said witness as well as the other witnesses. She also sought to

contend that the Tribunal had found the charges not to have been

3 MRA No. 838/2024 2 proved. By applying for review, she urged the High Court to consider

the aforesaid points.

6. The review petition, however, did not find favour with the High

Court which, by its order dated 25th September, 2024, rejected the

same.

7. The order dated 05th September, 2024 allowing the writ

petition and the order dated 25th September, 2024 dismissing the

review petition are the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

8. 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. Even if the Secretary of the first

respondent were authorized to draw up proceedings against the

appellant by issuing charge-sheet, 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, ought

to have engaged the High Court’s due consideration.

9. 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 approach, apart

from ensuring that all issues are considered providing clarity and

assuring some sort of a finality, would respect the rights of the

3 litigants to a comprehensive decision; also, if an appeal were carried

from such decision, the appellate court would be benefitted by a

reasoned decision of the original court.

10. The High Court, thus, appears to have faltered in deciding only

one single point while not dealing with the others, which is a

fundamental flaw vitiating its order dated 5th September, 2024.

Accordingly, we set aside the orders impugned in these appeals and

order a remand of the writ petition to the High Court for a fresh

consideration thereof in the light of the claims and defences of the

parties.

11. Since the appellant has reached the age of superannuation and

there is, thus, no question of her reinstatement in service, inter alia,

the primary questions that would necessarily arise for decision

before the High Court are whether: (i) the Tribunal was justified in

interfering with the disciplinary action taken by the first respondent

against the appellant and (ii) the appellant would be entitled to back

wages as well as retiral benefits, should the first question be decided

against the first respondent.

12. We request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay to

assign the writ petition to the roster Bench for its consideration and

disposal in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably

within a period of four months of such assignment.

13. All questions on fact and law are kept open for the parties to

urge before the High Court.

4

14. We also leave it open to the parties to explore a mediated

settlement notwithstanding that no such settlement in that behalf

could be reached before us.

15. The appeals stand allowed on the aforesaid terms.

16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………..………………………J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]

………………………………………J. [SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA] NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 11, 2026.

5

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.8 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.27266-27267/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-09-2024 in WP No. 5899/2019 and 25-09-2024 in MRA No. 838/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur]

HEMLATA EKNATH PISE Appellant

VERSUS

SHUBHAM BAHU UDDESHIYA SANSTHA, WADDHAMNA & ORS. Respondents

FOR ADMISSION I.A. No.263836/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

Date : 11-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amol B. Karande, AOR Mr. B Lakshmi Pallesh, Adv.

Ms. Akshda, Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Ramkrushna Shete, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Patil, Adv.

Mr. Parth Johri, Adv.

Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Madhur Duggal, Adv.

Mr. Sanchit Agrahari, Adv.

Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

Mr. Narendar Rao Taneer, Adv.

Ms. M. Harshini, Adv.

Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR

Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

6 Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA) ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

7