1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.598 OF 2010 Sunil Bhikanrao Garud - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) President, Gram Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon (Hare) and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.MS Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 to 3; Mrs.SD Shelke,AGP for Respondent No.4. ----- WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1549 OF 2010. 1) Gram Vikas Mandal, Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tq.Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon, through its President and others. = PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. = RESPONDENTS ___ 2 Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for petitioners; Mrs.SD Shelke, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Mr.MS Deshmukh, Adv. for Respondent No.4. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 27th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 in WP No.598/2010 has tendered a short affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.1, copy of which is served on Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for petitioner. The said short affidavit is taken on record. 2) By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 3) The order dated 30th October, 2009 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nasik, thereby terminating services of the petitioner-librarian in WP No.598/2010 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages w.e.f. 3rd January, 2008, as subsistence allowance. In the said order, the School management was allowed to conduct a domestic inquiry afresh against the petitioner, to be done within a period of sixty days. The said order is questioned by the 3 librarian and school management by respective writ petitions. 4) Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner – librarian, while putting up his contention heavily relied upon the provisions of Section 11 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, and submits that the arena of powers vested in the Tribunal is well defined and the learned Presiding Officer could not travel in his order to direct a domestic inquiry against petitioner – librarian. He contended that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the domestic inquiry, that has been found observed by the learned Presiding Officer and he has rightly quashed the proceedings. He should have stopped there only. 5) The grievance of learned Counsel for the petitioner – Librarian, Sunil Garud cannot be countenanced in view of specific indication contemplated in Section 11(2)(f), which reads, - “to give such other relief to the employee and to observe such other condition, as it may specify, having regard to the circumstances of the case. ” 6) It was in this situation and legal frame, the learned Presiding Officer was justified having observed that principles of natural justice were not followed, no proper 4 opportunity, as petitioner – Sunil expected, was given and consequently, he directed de novo inquiry. He allowed liberty to the management to conduct a domestic inquiry against petitioner – Sunil. I do not see anything wrong in the order of learned Presiding Officer. Consequently, Writ Petition No.598/2010 lacks merit, dismissed. 7) In Writ Petition No. 1549/2010, the management feels aggrieved to the directions by the Presiding Officer to pay 50% of back wages. 8) Now, Mr. Talekar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the management, concedes to act upon the said order and seeks leave to withdraw the writ petition. 9) Considering the fact situation, petitioner - Sunil apprehends that even the domestic inquiry, which is virtually concluded on 9.9.2010 and pending for further decision, may turn against him, the management being prejudicial against him. 10) The apprehension that has been nursed by the petitioner – Sunil need not be commented. It is for the Education Officer to hold an inquiry within the ambit of the field and authority conferred to him. However, the principles of natural justice also invite that the conclusion of the domestic inquiry should not fall back on the petitioner – Sunil to face again brunt of termination of service without affording to 5 prefer an appeal. In the scenario, if any decision, adverse to the petitioner – Sunil, is taken by the management in the domestic inquiry, the same should not be implemented or acted upon for a period of four weeks from such communication to the petitioner – Sunil. 11) It is made clear, the observation about grant of stay for a period of four weeks, does not mean that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, too act in such direction while entertaining proposed appeal of petitioner – Sunil Bhikanrao Garud. 12) Both the writ petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/