1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 175/2005 Mahadeo Ramkrishna Bhakare ..vs.. Arogya Dnyan Wardhini Sanstha Akola and six others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 26 th February, 2008 1. Heard Dr. De, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Meghe, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4, Mr. Adgokar, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 7. 2. Dr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete names of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Leave granted. Names of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are permitted to be deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 3. The petition takes exception to the order dated 25.10.2004 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati in Appeal No. 198/1997, whereby petitioner's appeal, challenging termination order dated 16.12.1997 came 2 to be dismissed. 4. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, passed order on 17.01.2007, thereby recorded finding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner cannot be held to be legal and valid. 5. Mr. Meghe, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at that time also made statement that the matter is required to be remanded back to the School Tribunal to allow them to prove the petitioner's misconduct before the School Tribunal. However, the writ petition was kept pending in view of the fact that the issue whether evidence can be adduced before the School Tribunal was pending before the Full Bench of this Court. 6. There is no dispute that the Full Bench in Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal ..vs.. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha and another; 2007 (3) Mh. L. J. 753; has answered the above said issue in the affirmative meaning thereby that the additional evidence can be adduced before 3 the School Tribunal to prove the misconduct. 7. Dr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal and liberty is given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to adduce additional evidence to prove misconduct of the petitioner. 8. In view of above, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order. (i) The impugned order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 198/1997 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the School Tribunal for decision afresh. (ii) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to adduce additional evidence before the School Tribunal in order to prove the petitioner's misconduct, if any. (iii) Needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine witness of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and lead further evidence, if necessary and so advised. 4 (iv) The School Tribunal shall decide the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (v) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale