1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1145/2010 Savitribai Fule Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Wardha Vs. Ku. Sundarshani D. Thool and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Madkholka, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Chandurkar, Adv. for respondent no.1. Mr. Jaiswal, AGP for respondents 2 to 4. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5TH JULY, 2010. 1] Advocate Madkholkar for the Management states that after the decision by the School Tribunal, the matter was sent to the Deputy Director under Section 4 A of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act vide judgment dated 3rd April, 2009 by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1347/2001. Respondent no.3 has considered the controversy and though he found that nine charges are proved without looking into the nature of misconduct, conclusion that the charges are minor in nature has been drawn. With the result, the appeal of employee dismissed by School Tribunal is allowed with a direction to the Management to impose minor punishment and to restore employee on the post of Head Mistress with all consequential benefits. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2010) 4 SCC 785 CCT Vs. Shukla and Bros. Learned counsel has contended that reasons are 2 sine-qua-non and its absence is fatal. He has also urged that in view of the scheme of M.E.P.S. Rule 1981, under Section 4 A jurisdiction of respondent no.3 Deputy Director cannot issue direction to impose minor punishments. 2] Advocate Chandurkar for respondent no.1 employee as also learned A.G.P. have supported the impugned order. According to Advocate Chandurkar, the order needs to be looked into in the back ground of the minutes of hearing, as recorded by respondent no.3. He contends that as such it was not necessary to record reasons in detail. 3] I have perused the relevant papers. The order dated 21st July, 2009 passed by respondent no.3 does not indicate that it is to be read along with some other material. After accepting that out of 21 charges, nine charges are proved, a conclusion that those charges are of minor nature has been reached. The order itself does not show the nature of misconduct. Because of this, on last date of hearing, the parties were directed to place on record the details of misconduct insofar as these nine charges are concerned. Those details are also produced before the Court today and I have perused the same. 4] In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned supra, I find that the order dated 3 21st July, 2009 impugned before me is unsustainable. Advocate Chandurkar has urged that respondent no.1 is reverted in 1999 and she has undergone sufficient humiliation till date. According to him, re-hearing of the matter is unnecessary and the order impugned should be allowed to be implemented. 5] However, I am not in a position to accept the said contention. The impugned order dated 21st July, 2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is restored to the file of respondent no.3 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned supra. All the contentions raised by the petitioner and respondent no.1 are kept open. 6] The parties shall appear before respondent no.3 on 14th July, 2010 and shall abide by his further direction in the matter. Said respondent shall attempt to decide the matter afresh as early as possible and in any case by 15th September, 2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.