WP/5069/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5069 OF 2010 Mahatma Phule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. R.Y. Khandale & ors. ... Respondents Mrs.A.A. Agarwal for Petitioners Mr.A.M. Joshi for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal on 25.3.2010. By this order, the School Tribunal has found that the enquiry conducted against the respondent employee was contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The tribunal has therefore set aside the decision of the petitioner terminating the services of the respondent w.e.f. 15.5.2006. The Tribunal has further directed the petitioner to issue a show-cause notice under Rule 36(1) of the MEPS Rules and to conduct an enquiry in accordance with those rules, de novo. The Tribunal has further directed that the suspension order passed against the respondent employee will continue till the completion of the enquiry unless it is expressly withdrawn. Arrears of subsistence allowance has been directed to be paid WP/5069/2010 : 2 : to the employee prior to the commencement of the enquiry de novo. 2. In my opinion, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The Tribunal has found that no notice was given to the respondent for him to attend the enquiry. Moreover the enquiry was conducted in the school. The respondent employee having been charged with rape of one girl student, was arrested. Bail was granted to him on certain conditions, one of which was that he should not reside in the local area. Accordingly, instead of residing at Azadnagar he was staying at Parvati. Therefore, the notice has not been received by him although it was sent to his home in Azadnagar. 3. In my opinion, this would not be good service as the management was aware that the employee had been granted bail on certain terms and conditions and had been directed not to enter that local area. Therefore, sending him a notice at Azadnagar was of no consequence. 4. In my opinion, the order passed by the tribunal is correct. Petition is accordingly dismissed.