1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4917/2009 (Navjeevan Society and another ..vs. Anil Narayan Paranjape and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 20, 2009 Heard learned Advocate Shri Anand Parchure with Advocate Shri Thakre for petitioner, learned Advocate Shri P.D.Meghe for respondent No1. And learned AGP for respondent No.2. The Sc[hool Tribunal has found that enquiry was not taken in accordance with principals of natural justice. However, it has also applied its mind to the merits of the controversy and considered each charge to record a finding that those charges are not proved. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that when enquiry was found to be vitiated, the management should have been permitted to continue further that Departmental Enquiry from the stage at which error crept in and the School Tribunal could not have granted reinstatement straightway. He contends 2 that enquiry was found to be vitiated because of non- supply of documents to respondent No.1. To a court question, which is the most serious charge, charge No.9 about misappropriation is stated to be most serious charge. The finding recorded on it by the Convener of Enquiry Committee is pressed into service. Learned Advocate Shri Meghe points out that as enquiry was conducted and completed, in such circumstances, there cannot be any second enquiry. He further states that effort of management to conduct second enquiry in such circumstances, if permitted, will never put to an end to any Departmental Enquiry. He invites attention to the various paragraphs of the judgment of School Tribunal to show the misconduct is not found established on merits. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned judgment. It is apparent that the management relied upon the Departmental Enquiry, which was found to be vitiated. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Full Bench reported at 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 753 in the case of Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal ..vs.. Pratibah Shikshan Sanstha and another, it is apparent that such course of action is now not open. The School Tribunal has noticed that the 3 petitioner was required to come to Nagpur to attend some court case and on very same day his wife developed some health problem and hence, she was also shifted to Nagpur by her brother and because of her hospitalization, petitioner could not come back to the school. It also found that these developments were informed by him to the school authorities and some other person was placed in-charge of administration. The effort of the management to held him guilty for negligence in the matter of looking after a missing student, has, therefore, been found to be without any substance. About the misappropriation, the School Tribunal has found that amount involved was Rs. 1,025/-, which was supposed to be spent on magazines and newspapers, it found that state awardee teacher has reported that said amount was not misappropriated at all and it was used towards expenditure of school till receipt of grants. The said appreciation is not shown to be perverse. Its findings against other charges reveal the incorrectness of inquiry report. In the circumstances, I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error in the application of mind by the School Tribunal. No case is, therefore, made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 4 JUDGE Diwale.