1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3151/2008 Nutan Maharashtra Vidya Vikas Mandal, Bhandara ..vs.. Dy. Director of Education Nagpur Division, Nagpur and anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yengal, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1. Mr. Charlewar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 5 th DECEMBER, 2008 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. After obtaining explanation of respondent no. 2- Head Mistress for the alleged misconduct and offence, punishment of withholding one increment for one year was inflicted upon her. The said punishment was challenged before respondent no. 1-Deputy Director and respondent no.1 found that the defects or the alleged misconduct pointed out in the show cause notice were subsequently rectified or complied with. In view of this subsequent rectification, the punishment has been set aside. 2 3. Mr. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the misconduct were of serious nature including not depositing the amount with the Board though the same were collected from the students in due time. He further states that the subsequent rectification cannot have the effect of wiping out the misconduct. 4. Mr. Charlewar, learned counsel for respondent no.2, states that the Management itself found that the there was no malafide in the matter, therefore, lenient view was taken and respondent no. 1 has shown further leniency by accepting subsequent rectification as sufficient compliance. Mr. Yengal, learned A.G.P. supports the order and accepts the contention of Mr. Charlewar. 5. In the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1, it is nowhere mentiones that the explanation given by respondent no. 2 was satisfactory or the misconduct was of minor or technical nature or there was only negligence. 3 6. In the circumstances, I find myself unable to consider the controversy further on merits so as to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Kshirsagar, that the impugned order cannot be sustained because subsequent compliance cannot have the effect of wiping out the misconduct. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.02.2008 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 1 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing parties, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event by 30.04.2009. Parties to appear before respondent no. 1 on 12.01.2009 and shall abide by further instructions in the matter. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale