1 wp5532.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5532 OF 2010 Kshanmukhanand Hanumant Date ...Petitioner vs. Jivhala Apangamati Vikas Sanstha & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.I.M.Khairdi for the petitioner Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 83 (1) of the Special School Code for Disabled Persons, 1997 has been dismissed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer who is the Appellate Authority. The order under challenge before the Appellate Authority was dated 5 th October 2001 of removal of the petitioner from the employment of the 1 st respondent. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same order of removal before the School Tribunal under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Regulation Act,1977 was not maintainable. The petitioner was advised to file the same which was decided against the petitioner in as much as the petitioner could not get an order of reinstatement. He submitted that the School Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the appeal against the order of termination dated 5 th October 2001. 2 wp5532.sxw It is submitted that the order passed by the School Tribunal is non-est and therefore, notwithstanding the confirmation of the order of the School Tribunal by this Court, the appeal under Rule 86 (1) was maintainable. He submitted that without considering the merits of the challenge by the petitioner, the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground of dismissal of the appeal made by the petitioner before the School Tribunal for grant of reinstatement. He submitted that the order passed by the School Tribunal ought to have been ignored. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that after holding an enquiry, an order of termination of employment of the petitioner was passed on 5 th October 2001. The School Tribunal in an Appeal preferred by the petitioner held that enquiry was conducted by following principles of natural justice. The allegation against the petitioner were of vary serious nature of sexual harassment of women employees and female inmates of the Special School. However, the School Tribunal directed the 1 st respondent to pay salary for a period of 12 months by way of compensation under section 11(2) (e) of the said Act of 1977. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition no.3426 of 2006 in this Court which was dismissed on merits by order dated 26 th February 2003. In fact, while dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court observed that looking to the serious nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, departmental enquiry would have been dispensed with considering the fact that holding an enquiry would be embarrassing to the students and other staff working in the school. The order of learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the petition has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent 3 wp5532.sxw Appeal. 4 It must be noted here that the Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition held the enquiry to be legal in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court. 5 The order of the Division Bench was passed on 8 th April 2003. It appears that as late as on 7 th March 2009 the petitioner preferred an appeal by invoking section 83 (1) of the Special School Code for Disable Persons, 1997 for challenging the same order dated 5 th October 2001. 6 In view of what is held by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and what is held by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner, it is not possible to find fault with the impugned order. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. No interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE 4 wp5532.sxw