1 W.P.No.5844.98 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5844 OF 1998 The Chairman, Shri Laxmi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Shri Balasaheb Hindurao Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.S.Topkar for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Shetye i/by Mr.A.B.Borkar for Resp. No.1. Mr.S.N.Bhosle, A.G.P. for Resp. No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 8TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the School Tribunal dated 23.7.1998. By this order the School Tribunal set aside the order of termination passed by the petitioners and directed to reinstate respondent No.1 with continuity of service and full back wages. However, the Tribunal has substituted the punishment of dismissal with a punishment of stoppage of 5 increments. 2 W.P.No.5844.98 2. Though the present petition was admitted on 24.11.1998, no interim relief was granted. Aggrieved by the order refusing interim relief, the petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.309 of 1998 which was dismissed on 3.12.1998. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.269 of 1999 which met with the same fate on 25.1.1999. 3. The petitioners, therefore, reinstated the respondent employee. However, it appears that his services were terminated once again on 8.1.2003 for certain previous acts of misconduct after holding a domestic enquiry. In fact, the respondent No.1 employee was also convicted in a criminal case for the charges levelled against him and for which he was dismissed from service on 8.1.2003. 4. The respondent has not challenged the order of termination dated 8.1.2003. 5. In these circumstances, the present petition has become infructuous and stands dismissed as such. 6. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ..... 3 W.P.No.5844.98 4 W.P.No.5844.98