1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3704 OF 2008 (Bahujan Vikas Mandal vs. Kum. Shalini Narayan Chakranarayan & Ors. ) 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. OCTOBER 24, 2008. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ghare, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The enquiry conducted against the present Respondent No.1 by the petitioner is found to be vitiated by the School Tribunal and hence by the judgment dated 18.6.2008, the School Tribunal has granted her relief of reinstatement with continuity and back wages. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel has pointed out that the communications were forwarded to the respondent thrice by RPAD and on all occasions as she was not available, intimation was left at her residence but the envelops were not collected from the post office. He further invites attention to nature of charges to urge that as charges are of serious nature, the School Tribunal should have permitted the management to conduct fresh 2 enquiry. Shri Ghare, learned counsel, on the other hand, contends that the management has not conducted the enquiry as per procedure established and the enquiry has been found to be vitiated on various grounds including refusal of permission to respondent to lead evidence during enquiry. He further states that the School Tribunal has found that the Head Mistress then in charge was the best witness but she was not examined and charges were also vague. Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel is trying to demonstrate that leave was sought from the School Tribunal to lead additional evidence but that was not granted and even written statement was not allowed to be amended. In the circumstances, I find that the interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be permitted to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with law against respondent No.1 but the same also needs to be subject to compensating Respondent No.1 to some extent. Respondent No.1 was under suspension pending departmental enquiry till 5th April 2003 when her services were terminated. The petitioner shall treat her as under suspension till date and even 3 during the pendency of enquiry to be completed hereafter and shall pay her subsistence allowance as per relevant rules. The petitioner shall also pay additional amount of Rs.50,000/- to present Respondent No.1 to compensate her for all the harassment and suffering in the meanwhile. If ultimately, the management finds her innocent or then the competent forum/ Court orders her reinstatement, the amount paid to her can be adjusted against the monetary claims then found due to her. The arrears of subsistence allowance be cleared within a period of two months from today. However, the amount of Rs.50,000/- as ordered above shall be paid to Respondent No.1 within a period of three weeks from today and she shall also be paid her current subsistence allowance regularly. If the amount of Rs.50,000/- is not paid as mentioned above within three weeks and the subsistence allowance arrears are not paid within two months, the order of School Tribunal in favour of Respondent No.1 shall automatically revive. In case of any dispute about the entitlement of management to reimbursement of this subsistence allowance from the Education department, the management shall first pay the subsistence 4 allowance/ arrears as mentioned above to Respondent No.1 and time schedule mentioned above shall not be violated because of said dispute between them. The management then shall complete enquiry within the stipulated period as per Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules. Though the Enquiry may commence immediately, the Enquiry Committee shall not submit its report to the management till the arrears of subsistence allowance are paid to Respondent No.1, as mentioned above. Writ Petition is disposed of as mentioned above. JUDGE *GS.