*1* wp.4364.10.920.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4364 OF 2010 Rajashree Mohan Jagtap. ..Petitioner -Versus- Gyandata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Mihir Desai, for the Petitioner. Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar, for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 09th August, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Bandiwadekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. With their assistance I have perused the petition and annexures thereto including the impugned order. 2 The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Management conducted an ex-parte enquiry against her. Although she was Headmistress of a school, she has been terminated from her services without any opportunity being given to defend herself. Thus, alleging that the inquiry is vitiated for non observance of the principles of natural justice and the consequential termination is bad in law, that the Petitioner approached the School Tribunal by filing an appeal which appeal has been rejected. 3 Mr.Desai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, *2* wp.4364.10.920.sxw contended that the inquiry was vitiated as indicated above. Further, the Presiding Officer was obliged to consider that even if there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner that there is breach and violation of the principles of natural justice, whether, the charges have been proved and in what manner. This has not been considered, leave alone decided by the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer could not have dismissed the appeal only by rejecting the Petitioner’s argument that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. The Presiding Officer was obliged in law to consider as to whether, the charges have been proved and whether, the punishment that has been imposed is consistent with the misconduct alleged against the Petitioner and that is the mandate flowing from the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. 4 On the other hand, Mr.Bandiwadekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, submitted that the Respondents had as early on 25.09.2006 issued a show cause notice in which the charges have been enlisted. The Petitioner was told to submit her written explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice failing which the Management will proceed on the basis that she has nothing to state so far as the charges are concerned. There was also a corrigendum issued on 26.09.2006 and ultimately, a written explanation was given on 03.10.2006 by the Petitioner. The Petitioner stated in her explanation that she has not committed any misconduct and denied all charges that have been alleged against her. 5 Thereafter, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. The inquiry was thereafter, held and the Inquiry Committee submitted its report on 27.02.2007. Thereupon, the Petitioner was informed that her *3* wp.4364.10.920.sxw services stand terminated w.e.f. 21.03.2007. It is this order of termination which has been impugned before the School Tribunal. In the memo of appeal as well, a general ground is raised that the inquiry was bad in law, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, the charges are false, frivolous and concocted and out of vengeance against the Petitioner and other teachers, that the services have been terminated. 6 The Tribunal noted that the entire record indicates that the Petitioner was absent at inquiry and stated that she was ill from December, 2006 to June, 2007. It was her case that she went to Surat and therefore, on account of illness, she was unable to attend the inquiry. 7 On the other hand, the Management stated that the statement of allegations was sent by RPAD on 04.11.2006 and it was returned back with an endorsement of refusal. A letter to appoint a nominee was once again issued by RPAD on 24.11.2006, but the Petitioner failed to appoint her nominee. In these circumstances, two member inquiry committee which was constituted by the Management, proceeded to issue the charge sheet and even forwarded all necessary documents. The Petitioner was informed about the date, time and place of inquiry, but all communications were returned back with the postal remark “refused”. The Petitioner did not participate in the inquiry although she was informed about the date and time. The Petitioner did not take steps even to appoint her nominee prior to inquiry. Therefore, the argument that there was no proper and valid inquiry, has been rejected by the Tribunal and in my opinion, rightly. The Inquiry Committee consisted of two members, namely, Smt.Savita Sunil Phaphale as a convener and Mr.Bhaguji Dagdu Thube, State Awardee teacher. The Petitioner failed to appoint her nominee. There are no reasons assigned by the Petitioner as to why she did not participate in the inquiry although she has knowledge *4* wp.4364.10.920.sxw of initiation of the same. The Tribunal was, therefore, in no error while drawing a conclusion that when the delinquent employee, a teacher in this case, keeps away from the inquiry despite having full knowledge, then, it can be presumed that the principles of natural justice have not been violated, but the delinquent employee deliberately kept away from the inquiry. This is because despite all communications sent at the addresses available in the record, the Petitioner failed to appear before the Inquiry Committee. She has not informed the Inquiry Committee or the Management that she has left Navi Mumbai or Mumbai and is residing elsewhere. She also failed to appoint a nominee. When all opportunities were given to her, there was no reason forthcoming from the Petitioner for not participating in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal may have omitted to comment on the charges and the manner in which they are proved, but having found that the entire material which was placed at the inquiry in support of the charges was never questioned, the inquiry proceedings cannot be faulted. Thus, the charges are duly proved. Even the punishment is not disproportionate or excessive in any manner. The Petitioner charged the Management with embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds, but failed to substantiate her allegations. Thus, they are rightly termed as false. The omission on the part of the Tribunal cannot be said to be fatal. In such circumstances, to my mind, there is no error apparent on the face of record or perversity in the order of the Tribunal. 8 In these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 9 However, if the Petitioner is entitled to any dues by way of provident fund and particularly her contribution and the Management’s contribution till the date of her termination, namely, 21.03.2007, the *5* wp.4364.10.920.sxw Provident Fund Authorities shall permit the Petitioner to collect the same. If any cooperation in that behalf is required from the Management, the Management shall issue necessary clarification or letter enabling the Petitioner to withdraw the said sum. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)