1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4172 OF 2010 1. Raja Shiv Chatrapati Vidya Prasarak Mandal, Mukindpur, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, through its President Ramdas Gahininath Golhar, Age 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Mukindpur, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar. 2. Raja Sambhaji Secondary School, At & Post Kautha, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, through its Incharge Head Master, Bhausaheb s/o Ramrao Jadhav, Age 39 years, Occ. Service, R/o At & Post Kautha, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Sudhakar s/o Shridhar Aware, Age 34 years, Occ. Nil, R/o At and Post Arandgaon, Taluka Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar 2. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 3. The Pay Unit Officer (Secondary), Pay Unit, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 4. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS ..... 2 Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate holding for Mrs. M.L. Sangit, Advocate for the petitioners Shri R.J. Godbole, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 to 4 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Rule was issued on 5.5.2010. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Member, School Tribunal, Solapur, dated 26.3.2010, by which the petitioners are directed to allow the respondent No.1 to discharge his services in the school and to pay him the back wages, the termination dated 10.10.2006 was cancelled by the order under challenge. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is, when the learned Judge could accept that the constitution of enquiry committee was legitimate and proper, there was no reason for the learned Judge to answer issue No.3 that principles of natural justice are not adhered to. 3. The learned counsel also submits that, answer to Issue No.4, as has been delat with in paragraph No.14 by the learned Judge is uncalled for and the negative finding is contrary to the record. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of President/Secretary, Pioneer Education Trust & Ors. Vs. Janardan Mitharam Jangale (2008(3) ALL MR 406 and also to the judgment in the matter of Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust and another Vs. Awadesh Narayan Komal Singh and others (2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 173). In both the reported judgments, the learned Judge has observed that the enquiry conducted by the management is vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice and the learned Judge has observed, "However, the Tribunal had two options either to decide the charges itself on merits or to relegate the parties for further enquiry from the stage where the Tribunal has found fault with the fairness of the disciplinary enquiry conducted against the respondent No.1." This view of the learned Judge is based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy (1996(9) SCC 322). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners informs that this Court, in the fact situation of the matter, may relegate the enquiry either to the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal or to the management by a duly constituted enquiry committee. 4 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 pointed the modus of the petitioner/ management in duping the services of five other teachers in the institution. According to him, all sort of documents and forgery is created and these manufactured documents are used wherever its benefit is required for a chill to employees. Another naive way, according to learned counsel discovered is when a prosecution was lodged for having prepared a false receipt on behalf of respondent No.1, the petitioner/ management came with a defence that there was a theft in the institution and consequently, all the papers are lost. 7. Without adverting to the contentions narrated by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/ the teacher, the fact remains, the finding of learned Presiding Officer, the subject of challenge, could not have been so done as the record primarily illustrate that the copy of charge sheet was received by the respondent No.1 on 5.9.2005. He again received it on 29.5.2005 and he tendered his reply on 3.10.2005. The proceedings apparently were started after 16.10.2005. A farce was apparently projected. If the management has not tendered list of the witnesses, it is apparent and a duty cast on the enquiry officer to translate such list of witnesses upon the respondent No.1, the delinquent in the enquiry. The enquiry was shrouded with several infirmities and could be branded as one sided. 5 8. Taking recourse to the above referred judgments of this Court and the fact situation emerged in the present case, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. Following order is passed. 9. The order of learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Solapur, dated 26.3.2010 is set aside. The petitioners shall constitute fresh enquiry committee, wherein one representative from the respondent No.1 shall be nominated. The enquiry to be conducted and completed within a period of 120 days after 15 days from today. The petitioner/ management to deposit in this Court, within 30 days, subsistence allowance as per prevalent pay scale payable to the respondent No.1 effective from the date of termination, i.e. 10.10.2006 till October 2010. Further amount be continued to be paid to the respondent No.1 by cheque every month till conclusion of the enquiry. Rule partly made absolute. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE