1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4137 OF 2008 Deccan Education Society & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs Shri Motilal Sonu Devare & Anr. ..Respondents ---- Mr.V. D.Borwankar for the petitioners. Mr.G.V. Pandya for the respondent no.1. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 17th November, 2009. PC 1 This is a petition filed by the management impugning an order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the presiding officer, School Tribunal, Pune allowing an appeal filed by the respondents, declaring that the statement of allegations dated 7.10.2003 served upon the respondents was defective. Further declaring that the constitution of the inquiry committee, findings of the inquiry committee and the managements’ decision and action of termination of the appellant’s services under rule 37(6) of M.E.P.S rules are vitiated, illegal, null and void, setting aside the order of termination and directing the re-instatement with back wages. It is sought to be contended that the court ought not to have granted re- instatement and back wages and ought to have remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. It is however, seen that in the peculiar facts of this case the statement of allegations which was very basis of the inquiry was not signed by the Chief Executive Officer as required by rules 36(1) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. It is admitted that the Head-mistress was not authorised to sign 2 on behalf of the management. The words “Chief Executive Officer” is defined in rule 2(c) as under :- “Chief Executive Officer” means the Secretary, Trustee Correspondent or a person by whatever name called who is empowered to execute the decisions taken by the Management”. 2 Advocate for the petitioners places reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P .State Spinning Co. Ltd., Vs. R.S.Pandey & Anr. reported in 2005(8) SCC 264 where the Apex Court held that in case, punishment order was set aside, appropriate relief was to grant re-instatement of employee with liberty to the employer to proceed with the inquiry by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing of the report. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, it is not a case which turns only upon non furnishing of the report. The very foundation of the inquiry is bad as is the manner it was subsequently conducted. In the circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order and the Petition is summarily rejected. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4