1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9205 OF 2009 1. The Nasik Zilla Ahilya Devi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal & ors. ... Petitioners v/s 1. Sau.Pramila Govind More & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.A. Shastri i/by Mr.S.M.Kamble for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Bubna for respondent No.1. Mr.P.I.Khemani, A.G.P. for the State. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 15TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed contending that the order passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik, dated 31.8.2009 is incorrect. The School Tribunal has found that the services of the respondent No.1 were terminated on 15.7.2008 illegally by the petitioners. It has found that, (1) the enquiry committee was biased, (2) the principles of natural justice were flouted, and (3) the constitution of the enquiry committee was illegal and not in accordance with the 2 Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act (in short, “the M.E.P.S. Act”). 2. Mr.Shastri appearing for the petitioners submits that even if it is assumed that the findings of the Tribunal are correct, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the enquiry for holding it de novo. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal v/s Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha & anr., reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 527, has observed in para 45 as follows:- “45. At this stage, it would be relevant to make reference to the cases of Government employees, who are protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the punitive action leading to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank without holding enquiry is taken in case of Government employee, then no alternative is left for the courts but to direct reinstatement with full back wages. However, in the recent judgments, the Apex Court has adopted little different route and permitted the management to hold departmental enquiry from the stage the illegalty has crept in. In this behalf, readily available judgments are in the cases of (State of Punjab and others vs. Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy, U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v/s R.S.Pandey and another) 24, (2005)8 S.C.C. 264, (U.P.State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs. P.C.Chaturvedi and others) 25, 2005(8) S.C.C. 211; wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in case of no enquiry or defective enquiry, proper relief is to set aside the dismissal with direction to the management to hold enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in and that the reinstatement is to be treated for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry and no more. So far as back wages are 3 concerned, the entitlement thereof is to make dependent on the final outcome of the fresh enquiry.” After considering the judgments of the Supreme Court in (1) State of Punjab and others vs. Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy, U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. v/s R.S.Pandey and another, reported in (2005) 8 S.C.C. 264, and (2) U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs. P.C.Chaturvedi and others, reported in 2005(8) S.C.C. 211, the full bench in Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal (supra), in para 65 has observed that such a course could be adopted only in exceptional or compelling circumstances. It is not a course which should be followed as a matter of routine as the very object of the legislation meant to provide the employees’ security and stability in service to enable them to discharge their duties would be defeated. 3. In the case of Bhagwanrao Vishwanath Vyawhare & anr. v/s Sau.Sunita Gopinath Palve & anr., reported in 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 417, a learned Single Judge of this Court, on considering the Full Bench judgment has found that the facts in the case before him did not warrant a de novo enquiry. 4. In the present case, in my opinion, the submission of 4 Mr.Shastri cannot be accepted for several reasons. The contention that the matter should be remanded so that the enquiry can be conducted from the time the defect crept in, is without merit. In the present case, the defect existed from the inception of the enquiry, inasmuch as, the enquiry committee has not been constituted properly and in accordance with the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Rules. Therefore, in such a case, a direction to hold a de novo enquiry would obviously be meaningless. It is not a case where an enquiry could be continued from the stage where the defect crept in. Further more, there are no exceptional or compelling circumstances pointed out in the present case warranting such a procedure to be followed. Merely because the management now feels or accepts that the enquiry has not been conducted properly it would not mean that a license should be given to the management to conduct the de novo enquiry by obtaining an order of remand. 5. In my opinion, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal cannot be termed as incorrect. 6. The petition therefore stands rejected. ..... 5 6