IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3851/2008 Arun Kisanrao Bhangade ..vs.. Lokvikas Shikshan Sanstha & ors =================================== CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: 30.9.2008 Heard Advocate Thakre for petitioner and Advocate Kulkarni, for respondent no.1 to 3. Challenge in this petition is to order passed below Exhibit 30 on 28.8.2008 whereby the School Tribunal has permitted the management to complete the enquiry within statutory period. Advocate Thakre for petitioner contends that as charge sheet was not issued, the de-novo enquiry can not be permitted to be held. He also argues that after statement of allegations were issued to the petitioner and he submitted his explanation & the management was satisfied that there was no need to hold departmental enquiry. It is his contention that President of the institution is now taking personal interest and therefore he is bent upon to serve charge sheet. He relies upon 2008(1)Mh.L.J. 417, (2007)9 SCC 625, and (1994)2 SCC 416 in support of his contention. 2] Advocate Kulkarni for respondents states that the management before the School Tribunal has withdrawn the termination order and has undertaken to complete the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of M.E.P.S. Act & Rules framed thereunder within stipulated period. He therefore, states that as termination order is withdrawn there is no prejudice and as far as allegation of misconduct is concerned the management is free to proceed in accordance with law. 3] None of the judgment s cited by Advocate Thakre show that management cannot in such situation, hold de-novo enquiry in accordance with provisions of M.E.P.S. Rules. In judgment reported in 2008(1)Mh.L.J. 417 [Bhagwanrao Vishwanath Vyawahare & another ..vs..Sau. Sunita w/o Gopinath Palve & another] this court has also found that such course is permissible, but then then in the facts before it the court noticed that it was mala-fide on the part of the management and therefore, did not permit conduct of enquiry afresh. This view taken is in peculiar facts. No such facts are either pleaded or pointed out . Judgment reported in (2007) 9 SCC 625[ Coal India Ltd & others ..vs.. Saroj Kumar Mishra] deals with administrative instructions regarding vigilance clearance for the purpose of promotion. The vigilance clearance could not have been withheld as there was neither charge sheet issued nor even competent authority had formed an opinion to issue such charge sheet. Hon. Apex Court in this background holds that departmental proceedings ordinarily can be said to have been initiated when the charge sheet is issued. 4] Similarly the other two judgment also are not applicable at all in present matter. AIR 1993 SC 1488 [Delhi Development Authority ..vs.. H.C. Khurana] is also pressed into service to show that the departmental enquiry cannot be said to have been initiated unless and until decision to issue charge sheet is taken. For all these lacunae the management has withdrawn the termination order. No judgment is being pointed out to show that the management is precluded from holding departmental enquiry again for the acts of misconduct. I do not find that any case is made warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ petition dismissed. JUDGE smp