1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 58 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.4048 of 2008 [Uruj-E-Urdu Education Society & ors. Vs. Firoz Khan Musa Khan & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anjan De, Adv., for the appellants. Mr. Nilesh Adbe, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. O.D. Kakde, AGP for respondent no.3. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 09th December, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Anjan De for appellants and learned Adv. Mr. Nilesh Adbe for the respondent no.1. 2. Finding recorded by learned Single Judge, namely:- The finding of School Tribunal that, the Management did not record either evidence in chief or cross examination of any of its witness, is not shown to be erroneous or perverse. The only 2 argument is that School Tribunal has found enquiry to be vitiated as charge sheet has been issued by the persons, who was then Secretary of the Society and not its President. , is not shown to be erroneous. 3. Learned Adv. Mr. De relies on following citations to substantiate his contention:- [a] State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy [(1996) 9 SCC 322], [b] Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust & another Vs. Awadesh Narayan Komal Singh & ors. [2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 173], [c] Bal Shikshan Mandal & another Vs. Poonam Rameshwar Joshi & another [2001 (4) ALL MR 789], and [d] Vidya Vikas Mandal & another Vs. Education Officer & another [(2007) 11 SCC 352], 4. Learned Adv. Mr. Adbe relies on reported ruling of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & another [AIR 2001 SC 2090], to oppose the appeal. 5. The proposition that though the management did not bring evidence to prove the charge, it be given a chance to prove the charges by applying the doctrine of relation back, is so far not coined and a rule of law or precedent in the service jurisprudence. 6. Of course, it would be an exclusive 3 decision of Management to proceed to hold a fresh enquiry, if permissible in law, and so advised. 7. With these findings, we dismiss this appeal. Judge Judge |Hedau|