1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2010 (Yuvak Mandal Pusad & Anr. vs. Samtha Kondiba Muneshwar & Anr.) 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 29, 2010. Heard Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Adgokar, learned AGP for respondent No.2. The School Tribunal has found initiation of departmental enquiry to be bad inasmuch as statement of allegations has not been issued by the Secretary, who was authorized to function as Chief Executive Officer in this matter. The School Tribunal has also found that in the charge sheet, alleged misconducts from 1996 till 2006 were used against Respondent No. 1 – employee while he was already punished for those misconducts, allegedly committed till 2003. It also found that notice for relevant dates of sittings of inquiry committee were not served upon him/ his representatives and report/ findings of the two Committee members is very vague. In this background, Shri Manoj Rajan Pillai has argued that if the statement of allegations is not served by competent authority, School Tribunal ought to 2 have permitted the petitioners to hold fresh inquiry. He further states that the punishment is justified even if the misconducts for the period subsequent to 2003 are looked into and finding of vague inquiry report by State Awardee Teacher and management – representative is incorrect. He further points out that envelops were produced on record to show that dates were communicated to respondent but he refused to accept those communications. According to him, in this background it is apparent that School Tribunal has refused to exercise jurisdiction available to it. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on the other hand, supports the contentions and states that for misconducts committed from 1996 till 2003, the respondent – employee was already punished and he had also approached appropriate departmental appellate authority in the matter and he was also exonerated in certain cases. He states that misconducts for subsequent period are found to be not serious by School Tribunal. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the records. It appears that dates were communicated to respondent by the management by R.P.A.D. but those envelops were not accepted by the respondent – employee and have been returned back to the management. Similarly, it also appears that the finding about statement of allegations not being served by the competent authority is not proper because admittedly it 3 has been issued by the Secretary. However, the facts show that in charge sheet of incidences from 1996 till 2006 were mentioned as Heads of misconducts and for misconducts up to 2003, the employee was already punished. The School Tribunal is, therefore, right in concluding that for those misconducts, there could not have been again a departmental enquiry. The School Tribunal has in para 24 thereafter considered the lapses after 2003 and those about four lapses considered by it show late coming by about two minutes, eight minutes, 10 minutes etc. There is no charge sufficient enough to warrant punishment of dismissal. Shri Patil, learned counsel has also pointed out that the impugned judgment of School Tribunal is delivered on 06.10.2008 and present writ petition has been filed on 04.01.2010 i.e. belatedly without explaining the laches. Shri Pillai, learned counsel has contended that in the meanwhile, management has made efforts to compromise the matter with the respondent. However, there is no such affidavit in support along with writ petition. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Pillai, learned counsel states that interim order operating should be continued for a period of four weeks from today. Shri Patil, 4 learned counsel is opposing the request. However, in the interest of justice, interim order to continue for a period of four weeks from today and it shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE *GS.