1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2918/2007 Nilkanth Vyayam Mandal and anr. ..vs.. Niwrutti Tukaram Munde and anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 15 th February, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Thakare, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Patel, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. 2. The petition takes exception to the order of the School Tribunal directing respondent No. 1's reinstatement and further direction to the petitioners to record absence of respondent No. 1 from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement in service in Service Book of respondent No. 1, as period of continuity in service. Respondent No. 1, however, was not held entitled to the back wages on the principle of 'No work no pay'. The learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal recorded finding that the termination of respondent No. 1 is illegal as charges framed against him were held to be 2 not proved. Following charges were levelled against respondent No. 1:- (1) Lost the faith of management. (2) Negligence and dereliction in discharge of duty. (3) Not obeying the orders of the superiors and thereby insulted them. 3. The School Tribunal considered the charges and concluded that the charges are not specific and are as vague as possible. The Tribunal also held that the members of the Enquiry Committee did not give their separate opinion and their opinion is also not supported with the substantial evidence. It was further observed that no evidence is discussed with regard to the charges levelled against respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the same cannot be said to have been proved. 4. Considering all the material placed on record, the Tribunal passed the order reinstating respondent No. 1 and refusing the back wages. No error was pointed out to me in the impugned judgment and order. 3 5. In this backdrop, in my opinion no case is made out so as to justify me to interfere in the impugned order in my jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale