1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4963 of 2011 Murlidhar Laxmandas Purohit Vs. Sindhi Hindi Vidhya Samiti, thr. its General Secretary and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Vishal Anand, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A. Parchure, Adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 16 th November, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, on 16.08.2011 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, against his termination order dated 20.04.2009. It appears that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2007 on various charges and the said inquiry was not continued in view of an application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The management had accepted the request for voluntary retirement and had not continued with the inquiry. However, since the petitioner challenged the action of the management of acceptance of the resignation or voluntary retirement, the respondent-management was granted liberty to continue with the inquiry which was dropped against the petitioner on account of the acceptance of his application for 2 voluntary retirement and the petitioner was ready to face the inquiry in accordance with the Rules. The respondent- management held the inquiry and as the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 20.04.2009. The order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the inquiry was properly conducted against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1981 and the charges of misbehaviour and moral turpitude, levelled against the petitioner were proved. The School Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 16.8.2011 held that the Enquiry Committee had followed the mandatory provisions of law and the findings rendered by the Enquiry Committee were legal and valid. The termination of the petitioner was upheld by the Tribunal. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that on the same charges the petitioner's services were terminated on 21.11.2007 and since the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his termination was allowed by the Tribunal on the previous occasion on 21.08.2008, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2011 when the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the same charges. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of merit. The petitioners services were not previously terminated on 21.11.2007 and his resignation- application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the said communication. The same was allowed by the Tribunal 3 on 21.08.2008 and by an order passed by this court on 20.01.2009 in W.P. No. 4850/2008, the management was directed to continue with the inquiry which was dropped against the petitioner on the ground of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement. The inquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules and the petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 20.4.2009. The Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the Enquiry Committee had followed the mandatory provisions of law and the serious charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. There is no error, much less a jurisdictional error, in the judgment passed by the Tribunal on 16.08.2011. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.