1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4678/2010 ( Vidarbha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another -: VERSUS :- Ku. Pushpa Udebhanji Gadge and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER 2010. Heard Adv. Shri De for petitioner, Adv. Shri Madkholkar for respondent no.1 and Ms Rashi Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3. After this Court permitted petitioner – Management to hold fresh enquiry, it is apparent that there is no compliance with the provisions of Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The School Tribunal found that there is no resolution of Management and it is also seen that no resolution constituting enquiry committee was passed. Adv. Shri De has contended that constitution of enquiry committee as such is not in dispute because employee also has participated in departmental enquiry. In the light of findings recorded by School Tribunal, I do not find any substance in this contention. Enquiry ought to have been in 2 accordance with the provisions of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Act. School Tribunal has found that Convenor was biased. He himself conducted cross examination of employee, acted as a Judge and also as a prosecutor. The enquiry report submitted is not signed by State Awardee Teacher and his signature upon it is stated to be fabricated. Adv. Shri De has also argued that in alleged defective enquiry evidence of misconduct has come on record and that material has not been looked into by the School Tribunal. According to him as misconduct has been established, the technical lacunae cannot be allowed to prevail or then in any case the matter needs to be sent back to enable the petitioners to hold fresh enquiry. Adv. Shri Madkholkar contended that there cannot be remand again and again in such matters till the Management holds a valid departmental enquiry. Opportunity to conduct enquiry in accordance with law was once granted and that has not been availed of by the petitioners. The enquiry cannot be treated as fair and valid. On the contrary, it only shows persecution of present respondent no.1. In such circumstances, remanding the matter again for holding enquiry afresh is not warranted. Full Bench of this Court has contemplated remand only in exceptional circumstances. 3 I, therefore, do not find any merits in the petition. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.