1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5346 OF 2009. Mahadeo Ramkrishna Bhakre .vs.. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and ors. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.U.N.Vyas, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Ghare, Adv. for respondent nos.3 and 6. Mr.A.H.Patil, Adv. for respondent no.5. Mr.T.A.Mirza, AGP for respondent no.4. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 23rd APRIL, 2009. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the School Tribunal whereby the School Tribunal rejected an appeal filed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (conditions of service) Regulations act, 1977. 2 2. The petitioner/appellant was appointed as a peon in the school. It was found during the course of his employment that his behaviour was not proper and his conduct amounted to insubordination. Since it was so found, an enquiry was held against the petitioner. The Enquiry Committee held the petitioner guilty. As many as four charges were levelled against the petitioner and all four charges were held to be proved. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal. That appeal came to be dismissed against which the petitioner preferred writ petition No.175 of 2005. This court on 26th February, 2008 decided the said writ petition and permitted the respondent/Management to tender evidence before the School Tribunal with regard to the misconduct by remanding the matter to the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal recorded the evidence of two witnesses namely; one of Headmistress and other one of Omprakash Tadokar. The learned judge of the Tribunal after recording the evidence found that there was sufficient evidence of misconduct on the part of 3 the petitioner and therefore, dismissed the appeal. This order of dismissal of the appeal under Section 9 is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes two submissions before me mainly, first; that the court should not have relied upon the evidence of Omprakash Talokar, who was himself the member of the Enquiry Committee. In this regard it may be mentioned that the enquiry has been already completed and the Enquiry Officer was examined in the court after the enquiry report was submitted. Therefore, there was no question of there being any bias as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The witness was subjected to cross- examination and what he proved is the manner in which he held the enquiry. There was no question of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner at all due to the examination of such witness. The respondent thereafter examined the headmistress Mrs.Mandakini Talokar. Her evidence has been considered and her evidence goes to show that she had received complaints 4 from other teacher with regard to the misconduct of the petitioner. Her evidence also goes to show that the petitioner used to remain absent without getting the leave sanctioned and her evidence further goes to show that the written warnings were issued to the petitioner. The fact that the written warnings were issued and the fact that there was no improvement in the behaviour of the petitioner shows his misconduct. 4. It is clear from the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioner had also made a complaint against the Headmistress in the police station directly for some kind of lapse on her part. The petitioner was in fact expected to make a complaint to the Management and not to the police directly and this clearly further goes to show that the petitioner has acted in breach of the discipline expected of an employee. 5. The order of the learned School Tribunal clearly goes to show that the learned judge of the School Tribunal has thoroughly considered 5 the evidence. There is no perversity at all in the appreciation of the evidence. There is, therefore, no reason to admit the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute