wp9859-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9859 OF 2010 President/Secretary, Bhausaheb Bora Apang Kalyan Kendra .. Petitioner versus Vilas Ramakant Padare .. Respondent Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep S. Gole for the respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard. The petitioner is an institution running a school for disabled. The respondent is an employee working with the petitioner-institution. 2 The respondent is appointed as a teacher. It appears from the record that the petitioner issued a show cause notice to the respondent alleging serious acts on his part and decided to thereafter institute an inquiry. The petitioner concluded the said inquiry and passed order of termination. Aggrieved thereby, the wp9859-10.doc 2 respondent invoked appellate jurisdiction of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Pune Division as provided by Rule 86 of the Code of Handicap School, 1997. 3 That appeal having been allowed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer on 26th November 2010, that the school has filed this writ petition under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 After the matter was argued for sometime, both sides agreed that the order passed by the Divisional Social Welfare Officer be set aside. The said order has been already stayed by this Court as and by way ad-interim measure. In such circumstances and when the petitioner has also stated before the Court that it would withdraw the order of termination passed against the respondent but with liberty to institute a de novo enquiry, the petition can be disposed off with the following directions: (a) The order of termination dated 27th November 2008 is wp9859-10.doc 3 withdrawn by the petitioner-Management. In the light of the withdrawal thereof, the order of the Divisional Social Welfare Officer dated 26th November 2010 does not survive and is set aside as such. (b) However, the petitioner is at liberty to institute a fresh enquiry in pursuance of the show cause notice, a copy of which is at page 14 of the petition paper book. However, such enquiry shall be initiated and concluded as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today. (c) Ordinarily, upon termination order being withdrawn, the respondent-employee is entitled to be re-instated in the employment by the petitioner. However, it is agreed that liberty having been given for de novo enquiry, the respondent will not be re-instated in the services and assigned duties. However, he would be re-instated notionally so as to enable the petitioner-Management to immediately suspend him pending the de novo enquiry. (d) Needless therefore to state that the petitioner will pay to the respondent subsistence allowance as per the Rules. wp9859-10.doc 4 However, this will not prejudice the rights and contentions of both sides and particulary that of the respondent-employee to seek all prior dues and benefits. (e) Needless to further state that if the de novo enquiry is not concluded within the period specified above, the respondent will be entitled to full salary as subsistence allowance and his claim for past benefits is also kept alive. (f) The petition is disposed off in the above terms with consent of the parties. (g) Both the sides to endeavour and complete the enquiry as directed above and the respondent shall co-operate in the disposal of the same. (h) The respondent-employee states that the show cause notice being duly served on him, he would not be insisting on service of the show cause notice afresh. (i) Petition is disposed off in above terms with no orders as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)