1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard advocate Shri Mantri with advocate Mr. Amit Mukhedkar for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar for Respondent No.1/ caveator, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. Contention of Advocate Mr. Mantri is, the petitioner/ management received communication dated 9th August, 2010 sent by Education Officer along with inquiry report asking it to punish Respondent No.1 under Rule 29 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (1981 Rules, hereafter). Accordingly, punishment of reduction in rank has been imposed. The School Tribunal could not have, therefore, granted interim reinstatement. He further states that punishment is already implemented and 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondent No.1 is working on the post of Assistant Teacher. 3. Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar for Respondent No.1 states that direction of Education Officer dated 9th August, 2010 allegedly issued under section 4A of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act, for short) does not dispense with inquiry as contemplated under Rule 33 to 37 of 1981 Rules. No inquiry has been conducted and directly the Respondent No.1 is sought to be punished. He also points out that earlier similar highhanded action was taken and it was upset by School Tribunal. That order of School Tribunal was maintained by this Court while disposing of writ petition No.6108 of 2006 on 29th July, 2008. 4. Perusal of order dated 29th July, 2008 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. in Writ Petition No.6108 of 2006 shows that though this Court maintained the order of School Tribunal in favour of Respondent No.1, the management was given liberty to initiate proper inquiry after observing the procedure as prescribed under 1981 Rules. 5. The management has now acted on the strength on inquiry report which it has received because of alleged inquiry under section 4A of M.E.P.S. Act. The communication to that effect is received by it on 9th August, 2010 from Education Officer. Said communication finds mention in the order dated 18th August, 2010 imposing punishment of reduction in rank upon Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has impugned said order before School Tribunal. 6. After hearing respective counsel it has become clear that Respondent No.1 has not 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. challenged the communication dated 9th August, 2010 before competent forum. Not only this, according to his counsel, the copy of inquiry report accompanying it has also not been produced before the school Tribunal. 7. Perusal of impugned order passed by school Tribunal also reveals that the sanctity of alleged inquiry under section 4A has not been looked into by the School Tribunal. The communication dated 9th August, 2010 produced before this Court mentions that there was some complaint made by some association fighting against corruption. That association threatened one day token strike on 15th August, 2010 and accordingly Deputy Education Officer has conducted the inquiry and, thereafter, on the strength of that inquiry directed the petitioner management to punish respondent No.1. 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 8. Thus, question whether petitioner management has acted upon a direction dated 9th August, 2010 validly or otherwise has not been looked into by School Tribunal. The reasons for which it could not be looked into are not relevant, at this stage. Prima facie, it appears that Respondent No.1 was also not aware of these developments. 9. Hence, with liberty to respondent No.1 to raise appropriate challenge in relation to said communication dated 9th August, 2010, and to file appropriate application for interim relief, the present writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order passed below Exhibit-20 is quashed and set aside only for said purpose. 10. If the Respondent No.1 files appropriate amendment application, along with appropriate 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 886 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. application for grant of interim relief, within a period of two weeks from today, petitioner management shall file reply to it within further period of ten days thereafter and the School Tribunal shall attempt to decide that prayer for interim relief as early as possible and in any case within further period of two weeks thereafter. 11. With these directions and observations, present writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:14/02/2011. ans/886