1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3533 OF 2009. 1. Ahilyabai Holkar Sarvajanik Sanstha Asegaon Purna, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati, through its President. 2. Ahilyadevi Holkar Kanya Vidyalaya and Junior College, Asegaon Purna, Tq. Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati, through its Head Master. .. PETITIONER/S. // VERSUS // 1. Smt. Radha W/o. Mahadeorao Yeole, aged about 59 years, Occ.: Retd. R/o. Chandur Bazar, Distt. Amravati. 2. Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri J.Y.Ghurde, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009. 1. This petition by management exhibits vindictive attitude taken by the management towards respondent No.1, who was dismissed two days before her retirement. This dismissal came in the context of her reinstatement granted by the School Tribunal in an earlier round of litigation. Respondent No.1 seems to have filed Appeal No.67 of 2003 before the School Tribunal which was allowed on 16.01.2008 whereby she was ordered to be reinstated in the position of 2 Headmistress. It seems that at that time the understanding was that respondent No.1 would agree that the management may empower another teacher for dealing with financial and administrative matters and that she would consent such arrangement before the Education Officer. On joining the school on 17.01.2008, however, respondent No.1 seems to have backed out and in the hearing before the Education Officer on 13.10.2008 claimed that she had consented to such an arrangement under the pressure of the management. The management held that this amounted to cheating, and thereby misconduct, and therefore, by resolution dated 25.01.2009 the management decided to terminated the services of respondent No.1 w.e.f. 29.01.2009. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal which passed following order : “ORDER 1) The appeal, is allowed. 2) It is hereby declared that the impugned order dated 28.01.2009 terminating the services of the appellant from the post of Head Mistress of the School Respondent No.2 w.e.f. 29.01.2009, is declared illegal and void and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 3) It is hereby declared that the appellant was deemed to be reinstated in service on the same post wef 29.01.2009 and was deemed to be continued in service till the date of her retirement on superannuation i.e. 31.01.2009. 4) The Respondent Nos 1 and 2 are further directed to record the absence of appellant from the date of termination till the date of retirement on superannuation of appellant in the Service Book of appellant as a period of continuity in service. 5) The appellant is held entitled for grant of back- wages and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby ordered to give the appellant her back-wages from 29.01.2009 till 31.01.2009 and other service benefits within 60 days from the date of this Judgment. 6) The appellant is ordered to submit necessary information in prescribed form and requisite documents for the purpose of preparation of her 3 pension case, to the management within 20 days from the date of this judgment. The management is ordered to prepare and forward the pension case of the appellant to the Education Department within 30 days from the date of receipt of information in prescribed form and documents from the appellant. 7) No order as to the costs. 8) Copy of this order be sent to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati for information and necessary action.” 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Relying on a judgment of this Court in Kashiram Vs. B.R.B. Damle ..... Society, reported at 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 235 the learned counsel submitted that in case such a domestic enquiry or dismissal is found to be irregular, proper course is to allow parties to relegate to the stage at which irregularity was committed and to allow the management to conduct fresh enquiry. This question has also been discussed by Full Bench of this Court in Saindranath Vs. Pratibha S. Sanstha, reported at 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 755, where, when there is ‘no inquiry’ the Full Bench has held that the dismissal would have to go. Since there is no enquiry there is no question of relegating a party to the stage at which irregularity occurred. This does not deprive the management of opportunity to start enquiry, should it so desire. 3. In this case, the petitioner has not, as a fact, started any fresh enquiry. There was no order of the School Tribunal or this Court preventing the petitioner from starting fresh enquiry. In view of this, it cannot be said that the impugned order calls for any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners’ grievance is mainly against direction No.6 in the order quoted above, whereby the petitioners were asked to 4 prepare pension case of respondent No.1 within twenty days from the date of the judgment. He submitted that while the Industrial Court in Complaint of unfair labour practice could give appropriate directions, the School Tribunal was not entitled to give any such direction beyond those permissible under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and therefore, this direction was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. This direction is merely consequential to the order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, need not be interfered with. 5. There is no merit in the petition, it is therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.