1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 252 OF 2010 (Prashant Ramrao Deshmukh -: versus :- Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati and others) 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 : JULY 5, 2010. Heard Mr. Z.A.Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.B.Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4 and Mr. C.S.Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6. Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent nos.5 & 6 states that he has obtained instructions as per order of this Court dated 23/6/2010 and as petitioner has not submitted any proposal and as the respondent no.4 – Joint Director could not have sanctioned any lien to the petitioner, the petitioner is not in a position to take any decision in the matter. He, therefore, supports the judgment of School Tribunal. Mr. Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, states that the respondent no.4 – Joint Director sanctioned lien on 13/3/2006 to the petitioner for two years and petitioner had informed this lien to respondent nos. 5 & 6 and also the fact that he would be joining a college by name Sipna Engineering College during that lien. Inspite of this communication, his services were 2 terminated during that lien period on 01/3/2007, mentioning that he has abandoned his services. According to learned counsel Mr. Kaptan, the management did not receive any communication of such lien. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Jaiswal states that the School Tribunal has considered the controversy and the Joint Director had granted lien for two years. Grant of lien is not in dispute and it is obvious that petitioner sought that lien because he wanted to work with other engineering college. The communication of that lien by the petitioner or by any other respondent to respondent nos.5 and 6, therefore, is hardly relevant. It is apparent that the petitioner did not abandon his services. The School Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner because it found that respondent no.4 – Joint Director had no jurisdiction to grant such lien. Absence of jurisdiction in respondent no.4 is not in dispute before me. However, again that by itself is not sufficient to infer the intention of abandoning the services by petitioner. For any error committed by respondent no.4, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The petitioner should have been given reasonable opportunity in Departmental Enquiry to find out whether he had intention to abandon his services. I find that respondent nos. 5 & 6 have simply treated the absence of petitioner from his duties as abandonment. In view of this consideration, I am not in a position to accept the findings recorded by the School Tribunal, Amravati in its judgment dated 01/9/2009 in Appeal No. 47 of 2009. 3 The said judgment of School Tribunal is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The order of termination dated 01/3/2007 is also quashed and set aside as per orders of this Court dated 23/z6/2010. Respondent nos.5 & 6 as also petitioner are at liberty to take further appropriate steps as are open to them in the matter in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE Diwale