1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.356 of 2008 1. Shri Chandrapuri Maharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chandur Bazar, through its Secretary Shri Vijay S/o Gulabrao Gohatre, Premium Plaza, Gadge Nagar, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati. 2. The Head Master, Primary Ashram School, Borala, Tahsil Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. ... Petitioners Versus 1. Prakash S/o Rambhau Tayade, Aged about 41 years, Occu.: Service, R/o C/o Shri D.N. Deshmukh, Vidhyut Nagar, Chandur Bazar, Tahsil Chandur Bazar, District Amravati. 2. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Amravati Division, Amravati. ... Respondents Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.A. Kothale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. 2 CORAM : A.B. Chaudhari, J. DATE : 21st July, 2008 Oral Judgment : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The impugned order directing the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.1 in service is challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the provisions of the MEPS Rules were not followed and no departmental enquiry was conducted against respondent No.1 before ordering his termination. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no finding of fact recorded by respondent No.2 – The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, who, in my opinion, acts as an Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal ought to have first found out whether the provisions of the MEPS Rules apply. Ultimately, the Tribunal ought to have recorded a categorical finding in that regard. The Tribunal also ought to have written a finding of fact about the alleged absence of respondent No.1-employee without the leave application. Nothing has been done by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, being the first Authority, was expected to take due care in deciding the appeal. The appeal has been decided in a most casual manner. Though the Appellate Authority has reproduced several contentions made by the parties in his order, none of them has been dealt with. That is not the way of deciding the appeal, which is the statutory right of the appellant. Now the only way-out is to remit the appeal to respondent No.2 – The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, who shall take fresh decision in the light of such other documentary or oral evidence as the parties lead. The Appellate Authority has also not made any order regarding back wages as a 3 result of which, there is likelihood of multiplicity of litigations. Hence, I make the following order : 4. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The appeal is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, viz. The Divisional Social Welfare Officer, with a direction to decide the appeal on merits and in the light of the observations made above after affording to the parties a reasonable opportunity of leading documentary or oral evidence as they desire. The appeal shall be decided within four months from today. The Appellate Authority is put to notice that if such an order, like the present one, is passed in future, costs shall be imposed on it. JUDGE Lanjewar