1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3512 OF 2008 (National Welfare Society, Washim vs. Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Wahid & 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. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Heard Shri Rupnarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner. He states that the School Tribunal has unnecessarily held enquiry to be vitiated, though the respondent – employee did not file reply to the charge sheet and also did not cross examine any of the witnesses. He states that he also did not appoint any representative to defend himself in the matter as member of Enquiry Committee. During hearing, he has produced before this Court the original register which incorporates the proceedings of Enquiry Committee held at 10.30 AM on 7.5.2005. The learned counsel states that these proceedings were also produced before the School Tribunal. The register has been given page numbers up to page number 35 and proceedings are recorded up to page number 19 only on one side of the page starting from page number 3. The attendance of witnesses or their statements are not 2 recorded. The first point of enquiry is about indecent behaviour by respondent No.1 – teacher with girl students of second standard. It mentions complaint dated 5.2.2005. Thereafter there is mention of reply dated 11.4.2005 whereby the respondent – teacher denied the charge. After mentioning this reply, signature of respondent No.1 Teacher has been obtained and then Enquiry Committee states that it has considered the deposition mentioned above. In fact, there is no deposition recorded on the said page No. 5 and it has been further stated that the parents of students specifically mentioned about indecent behaviour, hence, that proves that statement given by the respondent – teacher is false. Again, there is no statement of teacher. In the same way, Enquiry Committee has considered the other charges also. The School Tribunal has found all this to be incorrect. The observations of School Tribunal cannot be said to be either erroneous or perverse. The School Tribunal further found that name of the management representative was never communicated to the respondent and the respondent – teacher was not given any opportunity to nominate his representative on the Enquiry Committee. He was not given any opportunity to cross examine any 3 witnesses and even charge sheet was given before constitution of Enquiry Committee. In these circumstances, it has found enquiry to be bad. The said findings are not demonstrated to be either perverse or erroneous. Enquiry is, therefore, unsustainable. In the circumstances, I do not find that any case is made out, warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.