1 wp2640.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2640 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. D.R. Korade, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 The petitioner-Management has dismissed the respondent under Rule 33(6) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Rules, 1981. Conviction by criminal Court has been questioned by the employee in appeal before this Court and the appeal is admitted for final hearing and he is also released on bail. 2. Provisions of Rule 33(6) show that when Management is acting only on the basis of conviction, it can not take action for dismissal during pendency of appeal i.e. when challenge is pending before the higher 2 wp2640.11 Court. Here, after his conviction by trial Court and without waiting for the appeal period, the Management has taken action. If management wanted to take recourse to Rule 33, it could not have violated it. The School Tribunal has therefore rightly appreciated the controversy and has granted relief to the respondent no.1. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 3. Advocate Mr. Talhar has alternatively sought leave to conduct departmental enquiry against the respondent no.1. Advocate Mr. Jadhavar for respondent no.1 has contended that the dismissal has got nothing to do with performance of his duties by the respondent no.1 and hence such leave can not be granted. The provisions of M.E.P.S. Act, 1977 and Rules 1981 framed thereunder contain requisite powers and also prescribed procedure. Hence, no leave of this Court is required by the petitioner. With these observations, the Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2640.11