2006wp1289.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1289 OF 2011 Gramin Marathi Bahudeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and anr. ..vs.. Gajanan R.Rathod and anr. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. P.S.Patil, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.M.A.Vaishnav, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th June, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 21/01/2011, by which order the delay of seven months in filing the appeal, filed by the respondent no.1 herein, came to be condoned. The respondent no.1 herein was working with the petitioner – Society as an Assistant Teacher. On account of absenteeism an enquiry was initiated against him. After following the gamut of processes, as envisaged under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act, 1977, a termination order dated 20/10/2009 came to be passed. Since there was a delay in filing the Appeal, an application for condonation of delay was filed. It was the case of the respondent no.1 in the said application for condonation of delay that he became aware of the said order on 5/6/2010 when a communication was 2006wp1289.11.odt 2 addressed to the Education Officer by the petitioner of which a copy was endorsed to him. In juxtaposition it is the case of the petitioner – Management that the notice for initiating an equiry against the respondent no.1, the charge-sheet, the constitution of enquiry and ultimately the termination order were sent to the respondent no.1 by registered post acknowledgment due. It is required to be noted that it is the case of the respondent no.1 that only the statement of allegations was received by him. By an order passed on 15/3/2011 by this court, the record and proceedings were called for. On perusal of the said record and the proceedings, prima facie from the remarks of the postal authorities, it can be gathered that the envelope containing the termination order dated 20th October, 2009 was refused to be accepted by the respondent no.1. In the light of the case of the respondent no.1 himself that the statement of allegations were received by him, an inference can be drawn that the other documents, which were also sought to be served on him, were refused to be accepted by him as the postal remarks are “not claimed”. As mentioned herein above, the order condoning the delay of about 7 months in filing the appeal is sought to be challenged. A perusal of the said order discloses that the School Tribunal by merely accepting the fact stated by the respondent no.1 herein that he acquired the knowledge of the said order dated 20th October, 2009 on 5/6/2010, has condoned the delay. The learned Presiding Officer has not even considered the case of the petitioner – Management as regards the receipt of the various communications addressed to the respondent no.1 by the petitioner – Management. Be that as it may, since the School Tribunal has 2006wp1289.11.odt 3 exercised its discretion in favour of respondent no.1 herein and condoned the said delay of seven months in filing the appeal, in my view, the said discretion need not be interfered with by this court in its writ jurisdiction. However, in view of the fact that this court is prima facie of the view that the said communications were refused by the respondent no.1, the interest of justice would be served if the costs awarded by the School Tribunal are enhanced to Rs.2000/-, the difference in costs, if the original costs of Rs.500/- are not paid, to be paid over to the petitioner – Management within a period of two weeks from date. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The record and proceedings be transmitted to the School Tribunal forthwith. JUDGE chute