IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3240 OF 2009 Deepak A. Chandane ...Petitioner Vs. The Chairman, Shri Prince Shivaji Maratha Boarding & Ors. ... Respondents --- S.A. Rajeshirke for Petitioner Shri M.S. Topkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED :22ND APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the Learned School Tribunal, Kolhapur in Appeal No.166 of 2000. By the said judgment and order, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioner herein. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. The Petitioner was working with the Respondent College since 27.7.1992. Thereafter, since 1.3.1999 he was working in Maharashtra High School, Junior College, Kolhapur. On 18.4.2000. The Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner. After an enquiry was held by the Enquiry Committee, the Petitioner was found guilty for the charges levelled against him. The Petitioner served with the chargesheet dated 11.5.2000, in which it was alleged that he had misbehaved with one Snehal Maruti Kalekar, a student of 11th Standard of Arts Faculty of the said school on 7.1.2000 and as result of the constant harassment by the Petitioner herein, the said student tried to commit suicide. A complaint was filed against him in the Juna Rajwada Police Station. A complaint was also filed by 58 students of 11th Standard of Arts faculty of the said school. After the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee, a report was submitted wherein two members held that the charges against the Petitioner were proved. One member who was nominated by the Petitioner stated in his report that the allegations levelled against him are not proved and after the report was submitted by the committee, the management accepted the said report and terminated his services dated 18.11.2008. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the enquiry which was conducted against the Petitioner was not fair and proper. He submitted that out of the three members of the committee, one member who was nominated by them had held that the charges against him were not proved. He submitted that the said member had given detailed reasons for not accepting the evidence brought on record by the management. He submitted that on the other hand, the other members of the said committee had not taken into consideration several aspects. He submitted that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the evidence which was brought on record and without giving cogent reasons, had accepted the findings made by the Enquiry Committee. He invited my attention to the said impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He also invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. In support of the submission, he relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai and Hindustan Motor Mfg. Company, Mumbai reported in 2001 (102) FER 151. In the said judgment, the Learned Single Judge of this Court has held that since report which was submitted by the Enquiry Officer did not discloses analysis of evidence nor any efforts was made on the part of the Enquiry Officer to link any part of the evidence with the allegation of misconduct on the part of the employees, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are to be held as perverse. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that report submitted by the Enquiry Committee consisting of two members had given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence on behalf of the management. He submitted that the allegations which are made against the Petitioner were quite serious and he further submitted that, in fact, the Petitioner had admitted his guilt in the police station and also written a letter to that effect to the management. He relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shashikant B.Kulkarni vs. Principal, BPCS College of Physical Education & Ors. reported in 2008 (4) Bom. C.R. 1. He submitted that in the said case also it was alleged that there was misbehaviour by the teacher with girls students. 6. I have perused the impugned order. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence on record. The statement of the Petitioner recorded by the police sub-inspector at Ex.42/21, complaint of the student and her father. The Tribunal also noted that the Petitioner in his explanation had admitted the misconduct which was admitted his behaviour with the students and had requested that he may be forgiven. He had written letter to the head master of the college, chairman of the society and the student and her father as well as before the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Tribunal has also noted that the Petitioner had tried to pressurize the convener and the state award winner member of the inquiry committee by bringing the letters from state level leaders etc. to influence them to give finding in his favour. I have perused the entire report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Both the members had taken into consideration the evidence on record and, had therefore, recorded a finding. The charges levelled against the Petitioner were held to be proved. The said enquiry report has been accepted by the Tribunal. In my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the submission made by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. The ratio of the judgment on which the reliance is place by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner i.e. Association of Engineering Workers, Mumbai (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are quite serious. 58 students had filed complaint against the Petitioner of his misbehaviour. One student of the Junior College Kumari Snehal Kalekar attempted to commit suicide on account of harassment made by the Petitioner. He had gone to the house of the said student when he caught red-handed by her father when he attempted to harass the said student. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, this is not the case where this Court should interfere with the impugned order while exercising the writ, jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.