'Romantic' Messages To Student Ground To Terminate Probationary Teacher Without Enquiry: Bombay High Court

If a teacher on probation engages in constant messaging with a student after school hours, which could amount to harassment, then in such a situation, the school management can terminate the teacher's service invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, without conducting any enquiry etc, the Bombay High Court held recently. 

Single-judge Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dealt with a plea filed by one Gavit Gulabsingh Suka, who challenged the decision of a school in Mhasala in Raigad district, which terminated his services probationary service from February 1, 2023 and he was given payment in lieu of one month's notice.

In his plea through advocate Sugandh Deshmukh, the teacher argued that since his probation was to end in the month of February 2023, he became a permanent employee before the notice period would potentially expire and thus, the school should have taken recourse to the procedure to terminate the service of a permanent employee instead of the process to terminate the services of an employee on probation. 

The judge noted that Suka was accused by the parents of some students, of him texting 'romantic' messages to some girl student and thus there was an unrest of locals in the area and thus the Principal took a decision to terminate his probation service. 

"The issue involved is serious, inasmuch as it appears that there were complaints from parents of students and the local community about a teacher in his 30s being in touch with students with romantic messages between them on WhatsApp. To my mind, the fact that a teacher had been texting a student, with a serious age gap, poses adequate grounds for the Management being dissatisfied with the probationer-Petitioner," Justice Sundaresan noted, while clarifying that no WhatsApp messages are placed on record and thus nothing in the instant judgment would cause 'stigma' to the petitioner. 

The Petitioner, the judge noted, had issued a written apology on the same day when the messaging was discovered and since then until the proceedings before the School Tribunal got underway, the Petitioner did not retract his written confirmation and apology on the ground of coercion.

"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. In my view, the Management had sufficient material to form a reasonable opinion, that conduct unbecoming of a school teacher is not satisfactory behaviour. If the Management is desirous of adopting a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate communications, it would be entitled to take note of the admission in the written apology to take the action of a non-stigmatic termination of the probation without the entire exercise that would have been applicable to a permanent employee," the judge held. 

Dismissing the argument that the School failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before terminating his service, Justice Sundaresan made it clear that the instant one is not a case where a permanent employee is being accused of misconduct necessitating a detailed enquiry, but a case where allegations of inappropriate communications have been made with an ex-facie admission that was not retracted for a reasonably long period of time.

"Needless to say, considering that the provision of Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act were invoked to terminate the services, and no actual inquiry with fact-finding and evidence was brought to bear, this termination would technically constitute a non-stigmatic termination. It is made clear that no stigma was attached by the Management and indeed the Management has not delved into the merits of the contents of the electronic contact between a teacher and student," the judge held. 

In this case, Justice Sundaresan said, one may consider the root cause to be stigmatic but the stigma is not one arising out of allegations levelled by the Management but by the un-retracted handwritten admission and apology of the Petitioner made contemporaneously with the complaints of parents against him.

"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 very fact that a teacher was admittedly in contact with students outside the classroom and outside work hours as the teacher, would be adequate to hold that such contact is inappropriate, and such behaviour is not satisfactory," the judge opined.  

With these observations, the judge dismissed the plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Sugandh Deshmukh, Aniket Kanawade, Bhushan Deshmukh, Vaibhav Thorave, Aryan Deshmukh, Irvin D'Souza and Karishma Shinde appeared for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate Narendra Bandiwadekar along with Advocates Vinayak Kumbhar, Rajendra Khaire, Aniket Phapale and Ashwini Bandiwade represented the School Management.

Assistant Government Pleader MS Srivastava represented the State. 

Case Title: Gavit Gulabsingh Suka vs Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sastha (Kolhapur) (Writ Petition 16771 of 2024)

Citation: 2026, LiveLaw (Bom) 43

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment