IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VPH WRIT PETITION No.3799 OF 2008 Vidya Vikas Mandal & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Madhav Bhalchandra Joshi Respondent Mr. Niranjan P. Shimpi, for the petitioner. Mr. M. P. Vashi, for the respondent. CORAM : Dr. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 21st, November 2008. P.C. . Rule, by consent of the learned counsel, made returnable forthwith. The counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. By consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing and final disposal. 2. The Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal allowed an appeal, filed by the respondent against the termination of his services. The only reasons for the order of the School Tribunal are contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads as follows- "After hearing both the sides and perusal of the - 2 - documents on record, I reached to the conclusion that the mandatory provisions were not followed by the management as well as Enquiry Committee. They have violated the rule 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Rules,1981. The statement of allegations were not issued to the appellant. The subsistence allowance was not paid to the appellant during the suspension period, therefore, the principles of natural justice are violated. It was mandatory for the management to obtain the permission from the Department of Education. The permission was not obtained. The termination order dated 04.05.1992, page 78 issued by Shri A.M. Shelar without the resolution of the Management is contrary to the rules. Appointment of Shri V.G. Behere on the Enquiry Committee being representative of management is contrary to the rules as Shri Behere was not the member of the trust. Therefore, the order of termination dated 04.05.1992 is invalid, illegal and liable to be set aside." 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid findings are not relatable to the grounds - 3 - raised in the memo of appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, it was urged that the petition was not in a position to state its defence before the Tribunal on the points which weighed with the Tribunal. There is merit in this submission. For instance, the finding that the statement of allegations was not issued to the appellant, has not been raised before the Tribunal. Even if the Tribunal were to find a defect in the Inquiry, the proper course of action would have been to direct the Management to remove the defect and to complete the Inquiry from the stage where the defect had occured. An order of reinstatement with backwages would not have been warranted straightaway. The reasoning of the Tribunal is laconic and the Tribunal has not considered the matter in its complete perspective. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings may be remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision, will have to be accepted. In order to facilitate this, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. 4. Appeal No.172 of 1997 is restored to the file of the School Tribunal. Since the respondent has attained age of superanuation during pendency of the appeal, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal is directed to - 4 - reconsider the appeal expeditiously and make an endeavour to pass final orders thereon within a period of three months. . The parties shall appear before the School Tribunal on 8th December, 2008. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No orders as to costs. Sd/- [ Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]