(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 1553 of 2009 1. Vidyashakti Shikshan Sanstha, Parbhani, Through its President, Suryakant s/o. Mukundrao Hake, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Parbhani. 2. Adarsh Vidyalaya, Vrundavan Colony, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Taluka & Dist. Parbhani, Through its Head Master (Incharge). .. Petitioners. versus 1. Bhaskar s/o. Ramrao Bengal, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Service (D), R/o. "Anand Niwas", Gajanan Nagar, Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Taluka & Dist. Parbhani. 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. Taluka & District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, holding for Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.J. Godbole, Advocate, for respondent no.1 / caveator. (2) Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th January 2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, in Appeal No. 30/2008, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and setting aside the order of termination dated 17-6-2008. By the impugned order, the petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent employee, as Assistant Teacher with full back wages and consequential benefits since the date of his termination. 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent employee on the ground that the enquiry held by the Management is not in accordance with Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. 4. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners management, and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 employee, agree that instead of keeping the matter pending before this court, it would be in the interest of justice, that the (3) Management is permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry in which the employee would be given an opportunity to defend himself in accordance with law. 5. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 27th January 2009, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, in Appeal No. 30/2008, and the termination order are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner Management is permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry against the respondent employee in which the respondent employee shall be given opportunity to defend himself in accordance with provisions of law. (iii) The respondent employee shall also be treated under suspension from the date of termination and he shall be entitled to subsistence allowance, as per rules, from the date of termination of his service till completion of enquiry. 6. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Parties shall bear their own costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp1553