1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.W.NO.2020 OF 2009 IN W.P.NO.3940 OF 2007 (D) Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Ghatanji and one anr. ..vs.. Narendra Ramdasji Kombe. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 5th November, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.W.Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.C.Dharmadhikari and Mr.Rode, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 The present petitioners had filed a writ petition No.3940 of 2007 challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal. The said writ petition was heard and was decided. It was directed that the petitioner should reconstitute the Committee for holding a departmental enquiry against the respondent. It was also directed that after reconstitution, the enquiry should be completed within period of three months. 2 3. The order was passed by this court on 22nd April, 2009. Naturally the enquiry ought to have been completed by 22nd July, 2009. Admittedly, the enquiry is not completed within that time. This application, therefore, has been moved for extension of time to hold the enquiry and to reconstitute the Committee. 4. The respondent has opposed the application and has contended that the petitioners are not serious about the matter and they do not wish to conduct the inquiry and thus they want to keep the respondent out of the employment. 5. After having gone through the contents of the application, it appears that the President of the Society was out of India and therefore, the Committee could not be constituted and enqiry could not be held. The President was one of the members of the former Committee constituted during enquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioners upon instructions submits that the President of the Society was out of India even before passing of the order and he has recently returned back. He submits that it was due to this circumstance that the enqiry could not be held and completed. The learned counsel for 3 the petitioner submits that the President was out of India for the purpose of medical treatment and that was the reason why he could not come back early. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no document to that effect has been filed on record and court should not accept the statement. It is a fact that no document with regard to the ailment has been filed on record but there is a statement at the bar that the President was out of India. This statement, I think, should be accepted. Considering the fact that the President of the Society was out of India, the Society could not take up the initiative for constitution of the enqiry Committee and holding of the enquiry. In view of this, I find that the time granted to the Society to conduct the enquiry should be extended by another two months finally. The time to conduct the enquiry and to constitute the Committee is extended by two months finally. The notice of contempt stands discharged. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent makes a grievance that respondent has not been paid allowances although it is so stated in paragraph no.3 of the application for extension of time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the allowances have not been paid actually, the petitioners undertake to pay the same within period 4 of three weeks. This order may be brought to the notice of the Education Officer, who shall expeditiously sanctioned the bill in favour of the respondent. 7. If the enqiry is not completed within period of two months as directed, a serious view in the matter would be taken. JUDGE. Chute