1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4719/2008 (Bhimrao Keshaorao Ingole vs. Pratibha Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 25 st NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri Kothale for petitioner and Advocate Shri Vaishnav. for respondent no.1. The petitioner who had not raised any defence before the management at any point of time and did not adduce his evidence in defence before the Inquiry Committee, approached the School Tribunal contending that the inquiry was vitiated as he was not supplied the relevant documents. The School Tribunal after hearing both the sides, found that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 36 & 37 and due opportunity was given to the present petitioner. During argument before me, Advocate Kothale argues that documents were not supplied to petitioner at all and the observations of School Tribunal that documents were supplied along with the charge-sheet are not relevant because thereafter vide Application at Annexure P-5, dated 8.2.2002, about 15 2 documents were called for from the employer and none of the documents have been supplied. He states that as no documents were made available, the petitioner could not raise any defence and also could not file reply before the Inquiry Committee and could not lead any evidence in defence. In order to find out relevance of these documents, petitioner was asked to show co-relation of these documents with the charges as mentioned in statement of allegations. The petitioner is not in position to establish any such relationship. Advocate Kothale contends that petitioner was senior-most and old employee and in order to victimize him, departmental inquiry was conducted and therefore, these documents were relevant. When the charges are found to be established, the reasons which prompted the management to conduct the departmental inquiry are not relevant. I, therefore, find that the relevance of documents sought for by communication dated 8.2.2002 is not established. Thus the prejudice caused to the present petitioner by non supply or by non production of those documents has not been established by the petitioner at all. At this stage, Advocate Kothale further points out that the decision of inquiry committee is not by all three members sitting together, but it is only 3 two members who have taken the decision and he points out that the ground raised in petition whereby it is pleaded that the members were asked to submit their inquiry report directly to the convener. The perusal of impugned judgment of School Tribunal shows that the inquiry proceedings were sent to the petitioner on 10.9.2002 as contemplated by Rule 37(5) and he was given time to furnish his explanation within 7 days. He has not given any explanation to it. It is not that each and every irregularity or non compliance vitiates departmental inquiry. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Patiyala vs. S.K. Sharma [1996 (3) SCC 364] is very clear in this regard. I, therefore, find that though full opportunity was given to the petitioner, petitioner himself for reasons best known did not cooperate with the inquiry committee. No case is being made out for interfering with the findings of the School Tribunal in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit