:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5585 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5585 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5585 OF 2008 Shri Mallikarjun Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Tadwal, Tal: Akkalkot Dist : Solapur & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Ramchandra Rayappa Fulari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. G. Kudle for the Petitioners. Mr. A. M. Joshi for the Respondent No. 1. Mr. A. P. Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal. It is not necessary to interfere with the impugned order dated 25.6.2008 since it appears that the respondent No. 1 had in fact returned the amount which he is said to have misappropriated, to the Secretary. It appears that thereafter the Secretary has returned the same to :2: the Education Officer. Similarly, there is no reason to interfere with the findings that the enquiry was vitiated since no opportunity was given to the respondent No. 1 in respect of the earlier enquiry. As regards the subsequent enquiry, there is no resolution taken by the petitioner No. 1 management that they had cancelled the previous enquiry and intend to constitute a fresh enquiry committee of new members. The Tribunal has further found several defects in the enquiry which are enumerated in paragraph 27 of the Order. Hence, there is no reason to interfere. However, Mr. Kudle, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Education Officer has unreasonably refused to make payment of non-salary grants to the petitioner No. 1. The learned AGP states that cheques of non-salary grants were issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1 but that those cheques were seized by the police in an enquiry against the respondent No. 1 and the cheques are lying in the police station. 3. There is no dispute that payment is due to the petitioner No. 1 on account of non-salary grants. The Education Officer is still willing to make payment to the petitioner No. 1. The :3: Education Officer shall therefore issue fresh cheques for the non-salary grants to the petitioner No. 1 within a period of four weeks from today. Petitioners are also directed to finalise the pension case of the respondent No.1 as soon as possible. Rule disposed of accordingly. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)