1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.8157 of 2007 The Chairman, Shree Sangameshwar Education Society, Solapur & ors. Petitioners Vs. Shri Mallikarjun Basappa Jambangi and ors. Respondents Ms.Geeta Mulekar for petitioners. Mr.S.G.Kudle for resp.no.1. Mr.S.K.Chinchalikar, AGP for Resp.nos.2 and 3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. Reserved on : January 31, 2008. Pronounced on : February 13, 2008. ORDER: 1. Heard Mrs.Mulekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners who are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/10/2007 rendered by the School Tribunal thereby allowing Appeal No.44 of 2006 filed by the respondent no.1 - appellant. The School Tribunal has held that the appellant had not submitted his resignation on 1/4/2006 and hence he was directed to be reinstated with full backwages. 2. Petitioner no.3 is a Junior College run by Shri Sangmeshwar Education Society at Solapur and the appellant came to be appointed as a regular teacher 2 with effect from 16/6/1986. Almost after nineteen years of his service a lady Lecturer by name Mrs.Bake allegedly filed a complaint against him on 5/10/2005, regarding sexual harassment. The Society also addressed a letter to the appellant on 17/12/2005 pointing out the instances of misconduct on his part. It was further alleged that he had beaten a student from Class XI on 16/3/2006 and, therefore, his explanation was called by the Society on 17/3/2006. The appellant submitted his explanation on 23/3/2006 but the same was not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, on 28/3/2006 the petitioners informed the appellant their intention to institute an enquiry and, therefore, he was called upon to nominate his representative for the said purpose. On 1/4/2006 the appellant signed the must and it was alleged by the petitioners that at about 12.15 p.m. he tendered a xerox copy of his alleged resignation. On 3/4/2006 he was issued a letter by the petitioner - Society informing him that his resignation dated 1/4/2006 was accepted by the managing committee, despite the fact that on 1/4/2006 itself at about 12.35 noon the appellant - teacher wrote a letter to the Principal stating therein that he had not submitted any resignation. The teacher, therefore, approached the 3 School Tribunal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ("the Act" for short). 3. The School Tribunal considered the scheme of Section 7 of the act and Rule 33(2) and Rule 40(1) of the MEPS Rules, 1981 and held that the appellant could not be said to have submitted his resignation as the mandatory requirements of the said Rules were not met and in any case the original resignation letter was not submitted to the Principal or to the Society at any point of time on 1/4/2006. 4. Mrs.Mulekar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the School Tribunal has not taken a realistic view of the matter and more particularly the seriousness of the complaints against the appellant. She also submitted that the reputation of the school was at stakes and the female students as well as teachers did not find it safe to come to the college when the appellant was around. She also submitted that when the enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant, to save his skin he voluntarily submitted his resignation but he was shrewd enough to keep the original copy with him 4 and hand over only a photostat of the same to the Principal. As per Mrs. Mulekar for all practical purposes the appellant had submitted his resignation on his own count and by way of an after thought he made out a case that he had never tendered his resignation and approached the School Tribunal. She also submitted that the appellant is running coaching classes and he cannot spare his full time for teaching in the college. She also referred to the enquiry committee constituted by the University on the basis of the complaints submitted by Mrs.Bake. 5. The findings recorded by the College Tribunal regarding the alleged resignation are in keeping with the scheme of Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 33 and Rule 40 of the MEPS Rules. No fault could be found with the Tribunal’s order holding that the appellant had not submitted his resignation in the eyes of law. However, that finding itself does not take away the right of the petitioners to proceed against the appellant on the basis of the charge-sheet that was issued or that may be issued. 6. Mrs.Mulekar has brought on record the report submitted by a 7-member Committee constituted to 5 investigate into the complaint of sexual harassment. The said report was submitted on 17/12/2005 and it dealt with the complaints submitted by Mrs.Bake. Three members from the committee recommended to issue a strict warning to the appellant - teacher whereas the fourth member of the committee recommended that the appellant must tender an apology. Thus the report submitted by the committee did not suggest to initiate a departmental enquiry against the appellant. It appears the local press reported some news about sexual harassment of a lady lecturer on 12/2/2006 which was in fact belatedly. The lady lecturer had also gone to the police station and filed a complaint. As per the petitioners there are some more instances of misbehaviour against the appellant and if that be so nothing prevents the petitioners to proceed against the appellant de novo and all the rights of the management including the right of suspending the appellant under the MEPS Rules remain in-tact despite the impugned order of the School Tribunal. 7. Hence there is no case made out to cause interference in the impugned order and the petition must fail at the threshold. The same is hereby 6 rejected summarily. However, it is clarified that the impugned order does not come in the way of the management to proceed against the appellant to suspend and / or to conduct a departmental enquiry under the MEPS Rules, 1981 and the management is at liberty to do so, if so desired. The decision of the management on this issue shall be taken within a period of two weeks and the impugned order of the School Tribunal will stand suspended for a period of two weeks, from today. (B.H.MARL