{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2891 OF 2011 1 The President, Venkatesh Vidyalaya Shikshan Sanstha, Gangakhed, District Parbhani. 2 The Head Master, Venkatesh Vidyalaya, Gangakhed, Tq.Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani. Petitioners Versus 1 Uttam Dnyanoba Phad, age: 56 years, Occ: service, R/o Gangakhed, Dist.Parbhani. 2 Education Officer, (Pri), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. Respondents Mr.V.V.Bhavthankar, advocate for petitioners. Mr.M.V.Ghatge, advocate holding for Mr.B.N.Gadegaonkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.R.Sonwalkar, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 30 th November, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2010, passed by School Tribunal, Latur in Appeal No.33/2010. {2} 2 The School Tribunal, in para 14 of the judgment, has recorded a finding that none of the witness, examined by the Enquiry Committee, has deposed against the appellant – Respondent No.1 herein. That apart, names of the witnesses were not supplied to the Respondent No.1. The complaints, on the basis of which appellant – Respondent No.1 herein is held to be guilty, are not proved before the Committee. 3 Learned Counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with the question that whether any witness has deposited against appellant – Respondent No.1 herein, he fairly concedes that none of the witness has deposed against appellant – Respondent No.1 herein. Merely because complaint is made against Respondent No. 1 and Head Master himself is the complainant, that itself would not lead to the conclusion that appellant – Respondent No.1 was indulged in the activities which are mentioned in the complaint. From perusal of the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal and in particular paragraphs 14, 15 and foregoing paragraphs, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal. In para 18 of the judgment, the Tribunal has observed that, there was no evidence before the Committee against the appellant for holding him guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Committee are based on the various complaints made by {3} the delinquent servants against each other. Therefore, the major punishment imposed by the Management on the basis of enquiry report is illegal and void and, therefore, appellant – Respondent No. 1 is held to be entitled for reinstatement and back wages. 4 Though learned Counsel for the petitioners was at pains to argue that when the Head Master himself has made complaint against the appellant – Respondent No.1 and there are serious allegations in the complaint dated 26.08.2009 written by the Head Master to the President of the Institution, the view taken by the School Tribunal, is perverse and contrary to the record. However, from perusal of the impugned judgment of the School Tribunal and in particular para 14 of the said judgment, it is revealed that none of the witness has deposed against appellant – Respondent No.1 herein and the complaints made against appellant – Respondent No.1 herein are not proved. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/wp289111