1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5587/2009. ( Ravindra Shikshan Sanstha and another -: versus :- Dayaram D. Kanhekar and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri P.N. Shende, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Shri Samarth, learned counsel contends that the departmental enquiry conducted against respondent / headmaster has been found to be vitiated because President of the Institution did not participate in the enquiry as its convenor. He points out that the President was unwell and Society had resolved to permit Vice President to discharge his role. He further states that as per Bye law of petitioner no.1 Society in absence of President, Vice President has to function as President. He further points out that the School Tribunal has found that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not prescribed in Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Service) Regulation Act/ Rules, 2 and hence the order of punishment is vitiated. According to him, in view of the material on record other appropriate punishment ought to have been worked out by the School Tribunal. Shri Shende, learned counsel points out that respondent no.1 has already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2000 and he further states that the alleged bye law of petitioner no.1 were never pointed out to the School Tribunal. He further points out that the School Tribunal has expressly recorded a finding that a minor punishment was warranted in the matter. As there is already a resolution on record of the School Tribunal which states that the President of petitioner no.1 was unwell and not available, and hence Vice President was authorized to work as President, it was incumbent for the School Tribunal to consider that resolution. It is also clear that, when petitioner no.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a Public Trust under the Bombay Pubic Trust Act, the provisions included in its scheme / bye law were also relevant for the said purpose. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the School Tribunal has not considered that angle at all. In view of this position, the impugned judgment delivered by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 56/1997 on 23.06.2009 is unsustainable. As the judgment is found unsustainable, it is not necessary for this Court to record any finding on quantum of punishment, and that aspect can be left over for consideration by the School Tribunal. For said purpose, the proceeding in Appeal No. STC 56/1997 is restored on the file of the School Tribunal for taking fresh 3 decision in accordance with the law, as early as possible and in any case by 31.07.2010. Parties to appear before the School Tribunal at Nagpur on 22.02.2010, and to abide by its further direction in the matter. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.