1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 34 OF 2010 (Raosaheb Varangaonkar Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal vs. Gajanan Sadashiv Hivarkar & 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. MARCH 08, 2010. Heard Shri Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioner. The perusal of termination order reveals that termination is not on account of the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code or also on the ground that he suppressed that prosecution and conviction. The termination is on account of show cause notice dated 23.04.2007 which alleges that during the subsistence of first marriage, the respondent – employee has contracted second marriage. But then termination order also makes reference to certain criminal cases pending before the Court at Nandurbar in Case No. 6 of 2001 and Case No. 75 of 2007 at Khamgaon Court. It is also mentioned that he has filed several cases against the institution. In this back ground, the consideration of issue by School Tribunal cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. The School Tribunal was aware of the seriousness of the issues involved and hence it has permitted the petitioner – 2 management to conduct departmental enquiry in accordance with law, if it so desires. This judgment of the School Tribunal is dated 31.07.2009. Even prior to this, in Writ Petition No. 5936 of 2006, Division Bench of this Court has passed two orders. By first order dated 07.03.2007, this Court noticed that there was no opportunity to the employee to explain his absence, no departmental enquiry was conducted against him and there were no grounds for management for not allowing him to join duties. Hence, it granted interim relief to employee, who was petitioner in that petition. By later order dated 23.03.2007, this Court has again reiterated the same facts while considering the prayer for vacation of interim relief. It appears that at that time contention was, as School Tribunal had rejected the appeal of employee, he had no locus to file writ petition seeking direction against the management. This Court, however, on that date, adjourned the matter to find out whether the employee was entitled to join his duties. The learned counsel jointly inform that thereafter services of employee were termination and therefore, writ petition was withdrawn and appeal before School Tribunal came to be filed. The consideration by Division Bench of this Court or even by School Tribunal shows that the management has not acted in accordance with law in the matter. It has already been given liberty to act in accordance with law. 3 In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction at this stage. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.