1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5298 OF 2008 Shri Ramchandra Yashwant Khandale. ...Petitioner. Vs. Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandl & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. S.V. Pitre for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. M.S. Lagu for Respondent No.2. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ..... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. December 5, 2008. P.C. Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the Learned Counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The School Tribunal has, by its judgment dated 6th May 2008 declined to condone the delay on the part of the Petitioner in instituting an appeal against an order of termination. A disciplinary 2 enquiry was held against the Petitioner on a serious charge of misconduct involving misdemeanor with a girl student. The Petitioner was charged of an offence under Sections 363 and 376 of the Penal Code. On 10th October 2005, a Learned Single Judge allowed Criminal Application 5941 of 2005 filed by the Petitioner for bail. Bail was, however, granted subject to the express condition that the Petitioner shall, until the conclusion of the trial, not enter the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Wanwadi Police Station, Pune. It is not disputed before this Court that the area where the disciplinary enquiry was conducted, namely, the premises of the school, was within the jurisdiction of the Wanwadi Police Station and that the area of Azad Nagar where the Petitioner ordinarily resided also falls within the jurisdiction of the same Police Station. The enquiry was conducted between 20th April 2006 and 12th May 2006 and an order of termination was passed, consequent upon a finding of misconduct, on 15th May 2006. The Petitioner was acquitted of the offence for which he was charged in the criminal case on 7th February 2007. The appeal before the School Tribunal was filed on 5th April 2007 together with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal declined to 3 condone the delay. 3. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been submitted that as an express condition subject to which he was granted bail by the order of this Court dated 10th October 2005, he was precluded from entering the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Wanwadi Police Station, Pune. The address of Azad Nagar where the letter of termination was served, falls within the aforesaid area. Hence, it is submitted that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the management that (i) The allegations against the Petitioner are serious; (ii) The Petitioner did not furnish his new address to the management; (iii) The address on which the letter of termination was served was that of his mother-in-law and it has not been the case of the Petitioner that he was not in contact with her. 4. In a matter relating to the condonation of delay, it has to be considered as to whether sufficient cause has been shown, that being a condition precedent for an order of condonation under 4 Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In the present case, it is an undisputed factual position that the condition subject to which the Petitioner was granted bail on 10th October 2005 was that he should not enter within the area falling under the jurisdiction of Wanwadi Police Station, Pune. The disciplinary enquiry was in fact, conducted within the same jurisdiction. The letter of termination was served at the address at Azad Nagar which also falls in the same area. In the circumstances, the explanation furnished by the Petitioner for the delay in moving the School Tribunal cannot be rejected as being malafide or being false. The Tribunal ought to have taken a just and equitable view of the matter. There is no gainsaying the fact that the charge against the Petitioner is serious, but that is not a ground for refusing condonation where sufficient cause has been shown. The fact that the address where the letter of termination was served was that of a relative of the Petitioner and that he had not furnished an alternate address pursuant to the condition imposed on him for the grant of bail, are not circumstances, which should deprive the Petitioner of the elementary right of access to a Judicial Tribunal 5 that has been constituted to deal with cases of termination from service involving employees of private schools. Sufficient cause has been shown by the Petitioner for the condonation of delay. The petition would have to be allowed. 5. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The judgment of the Tribunal dated 6th May 2008 shall stand set aside. The application for condonation of delay, Exh.1, shall stand allowed. The Tribunal shall now proceed to register the appeal and dispose it of after furnishing to the parties an opportunity of being heard. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal for receiving directions on 15th December 2008. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. .....