1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 29. WP/696/2010 (LAHU HARISING PANPATIL V/S SAKRI TALUKA EDCUATION SOCIETY AND ORS -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.S.K.Kulkarni, Adv., h/f Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Shah, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr.V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:12/10/2010 1. It is alleged that the petitioner, as Headmaster of respondent no.1, did not discharge his obligation scrupulously, invited several accusations and, in the Departmental Inquiry, he was found guilty and was brought down from the post of Headmaster to a teacher. 2. The basic lacunae in the inquiry is representative of Mr.M.J.Mishra, representing the petitioner, could not represent his case, as is evident from the 2 communication dt.7.6.2005 and 2nd July, 2005. The reasons assigned by Mr.M.J.Mishra are, he could not spare reasonable time to attend the ongoing inquiry against the petitioner and, secondly, till 7.6.2005, the petitioner did not hand over relevant papers for conducting or prosecuting the inquiry on behalf of the petitioner as a delinquent. The fact remains, after withdrawal of Mr.M.J.Mishra, as a representative of the petitioner, the management proceeded ahead with the inquiry and then found him guilty. This unilateral inquiry, has certainly resulted in miscarriage of justice and no fair opportunity, apparently was given to the petitioner to agitate his case and present the same to rebut the accusations leveled against him. 3. In the result, without further adverting to the merits of the accusations, the matter is remitted to the respondent management to hold de novo inquiry against the petitioner by giving him proper opportunity, including allowing him 3 to lead evidence, if it is so required. The petitioner is at liberty to nominate one member of his choice in the proposed inquiry to be conducted by the respondent no.1 management. Such inquiry to be conducted within 9 months from today. 4. The order under challenge is set aside under technical reasons. Writ Petition disposed of. No costs. 5. The petitioner shall make a representation to the management/respondent no.1 for intermittent monetary benefits as he was holding position of Headmaster and brought down as a teacher, the management will consider the same on its own merits, including forwarding such proposal to the concerned Education Officer for realease of the difference of wages. This is to be done expeditiously. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE AGP/696-10wp