[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8035 OF 2008 The Chairman, Kai Aaisaheb Rajebahadur Bhagini Mandal & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. Smt. Sanjana Babusingh Pardehi & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri R.M. Haridax i/b P.N. Joshi for the Petitioners. Shri N.R. Bubna for Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 18, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The School Tribunal has by its Judgment dated 8-10-2008 set aside an order passed by the petitioners terminating the services of the first respondent as an Assistant Teacher and granted reinstatement with 50% back wages. The School Tribunal found that there was a defect in the disciplinary inquiry that was conducted by the petitioners and, as a result, granted liberty to the Management to hold a fresh inquiry. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted before the Court that the first respondent is also aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in as much as the Tribunal has not considered the question as to whether the first respondent had duly acquired the [2] postal D.Ed. qualification. 2. At the hearing of the petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the first respondent-teacher have agreed that the Management may be permitted to hold a fresh inquiry against the first respondent in accordance with law and that pending the disposal of the inquiry the first respondent shall be placed under suspension. It is also clarified, on the request of the learned counsel, that all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, including on the question as to whether the first respondent did or did not possess the postal D.Ed. qualification. Hence, by consent, the following order is passed since no other point has been pressed: :: ORDER :: :: ORDER :: :: ORDER :: (1) In terms of the order passed by the School Tribunal on 8-10-2008 the petitioners shall be at liberty to hold a fresh departmental inquiry against the first respondent on the charge of misconduct. The inquiry shall be held in respect of all the allegations of misconduct contained in the charge-sheet dated 10-2-2001; (2) Pending the conclusion of the departmental [3] inquiry, the petitioners shall place the first respondent under suspension. The first respondent shall be entitled to such subsistence as is admissible in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981; (3) The question as regards the back wages, if any, and the manner in which the period of service is to be treated shall abide by the result of the inquiry; (4) All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, to be urged in the disciplinary proceedings; (5) The first respondent has agreed to co-operate in the expeditious conclusion of the inquiry proceedings; (6) The order passed by the Tribunal shall stand substituted by the aforesaid directions with the consent of the parties. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [4] (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) sjs/D8wp8035.8 sjs/D8wp8035.8 sjs/D8wp8035.8