1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5517/2009. Rajesh Babaji Chalakh -: versus :- Gaurav Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Ms. Kirti Satpute, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri N.S. Khamborkar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. Appeal filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools ( Condition of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 by petitioner / teacher before the School Tribunal has been allowed on 02.12.2009 by it partly holding his termination to be illegal and permitting management to hold departmental inquiry against him afresh. Till then he is directed to be treated as under suspension and his entitlement to consequential benefits is to be considered after result of inquiry as per that result. Ms. Satpute, learned counsel argues that charge sheet itself was not served upon petitioner and as such the order of termination is bad and as there was no inquiry, the petitioner could not have been treated as under suspension and needed to be reinstated back in service. She has invited attention to consideration of this aspect by the School Tribunal in paragraph nos. 32 and 33. She has further 2 pointed out that the petitioner is out of employment since 01.02.2006, for that purpose reliance is being placed on paragraph no.21 of the Writ Petition. Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel on the other hand invites attention to the charge sheet as produced before this Court to urge that charges of grave and serious nature were leveled against the petitioner and after inquiry on 03.11.2006 he was dismissed from service. His contention is in such circumstances as the inquiry is found to be vitiated, rightly opportunity has been given to the management to conduct fresh inquiry. He further states that looking to the nature of charges, deemed suspension has been ordered and hence this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. Learned A.G.P. supports the order of the Tribunal. It is apparent that the charge sheet produced before this Court was never served upon the petitioner and hence it cannot be said that any departmental inquiry was conducted in relation to those charges and thereafter he was dismissed. The School Tribunal therefore could not have permitted management to hold inquiry afresh. The School Tribunal could have permitted management to serve charge sheet upon petitioner and to proceed further in accordance with law, if management so decides. Though Ms. Satpute, learned counsel has argued for grant of full back wages. Shri Khamborkar, learned counsel has pointed out that before the School Tribunal no material in this respect was produced. The School Tribunal has already ordered suspension and therefore payment of subsistence allowance to petitioner. It is to be noted that 3 merely because order of termination is set aside, full back wages do not automatically follow. In present matter only before this Court there is assertion that petitioner has been without any source of income. There does not appear to be any such assertion in appeal memo before the School Tribunal or during the arguments before School Tribunal. In this situation, I am inclined to modify the impugned judgment and order of the School Tribunal by permitting employer to reinstate the petitioner back in service with 50% back wages. The petitioner management will be free to serve charge sheet upon petitioner and to proceed further in the departmental inquiry in accordance with law. At this stage, learned A.G.P. has invited attention to the order dated 20.03.2010 passed by the Project Officer, which shows that the approval given to respondent no.2 School is permanently canceled and the staff therein is directed to be employed in school run by Meerai Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha, Amalner District Jalgaon. In this situation, it is apparent that respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot conduct inquiry against the petitioner in the matter. The Project Officer is therefore free to pass further appropriate orders in this respect in relation to absorption of petitioner in said Ashram School at Amalner. With this modification, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.