Public Education Society, ... vs Irshad Ali Waris Ali And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 3191 Bom

                                                                                        wp5924.15
                                                   1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                        
                               NAGPUR.

                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.  5924      OF     2015




                                                                
    1] Public Education Society,




                                                               
    Murtizapur, through President
    N. N. Shaikh, R/o Station Area,
    Chiukhali Road, Murtizapur,
    Distt. Akola. 




                                                
    2] National Urdu High School, 
    through its Head Mistress,
    R/o Sonari, Distt. Akola.                                                PETITIONERS.
                             
                                                VERSUS

    1] Irshad Ali Waris Ali,
    aged 40 yrs. Occu. Nil,
      


    R/o Killa Masjid, Old
    City, Murtizapur, Distt. 
   



    Akola. 

    2] The Education Officer
    (Secondary), Zilla Parishad





    Akola, Distt. Akola.                                                     RESPONDENTS.

Shri S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P. A. Kadu, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Shri S. B. Ahirkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   JUNE  24, 2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT: 


                   Heard.     The   petitioner-Management   is   aggrieved   by   the   order 





                                                                                       wp5924.15

passed below Ex. 23 by the School Tribunal Amravati by which the

application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to conduct denovo

inquiry against the respondent no.1 has been rejected.

2] The respondent no.1 has filed an appeal under Section 9 of the

Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Condition of Services) Regulation

Act, 1977, challenging the order of termination dated 21.10.2013. This order

of termination is said to be preceded by an enquiry held by the Management.

According to the the respondent no.1 this enquiry was not held in accordance

with law. During pendency of said appeal the petitioner moved an

application seeking permission to conduct denovo enquiry. This application

was opposed by the respondent no.1 and the learned Presiding Officer after

holding that such application could not be considered before going into the

merits of the appeal proceeded to reject the same.

3] Shri S. M. Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that as the management was willing to conduct a denovo enquiry

no prejudice would be caused to the respondent no.1 if the application in

question was allowed. He submitted that even while passing the final order if

it was found that the enquiry was vitiated, the direction for holding afresh

enquiry by keeping the respondent no.1 under suspension could be passed.

In support of his submission he relied upon the following judgments:

1] Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society & Ano. Vs. School Tribunal

nagpur & Ors. 2014(4) ALL MR 622;

2] Abdul Salam Advul Khalique Vs. Shah Babu Education Society & Ors.

wp5924.15

2014(4) ALL MR 337;

3]Chairman LIC of India & Ors. Vs. A. Masilamani 2013 ALL SCR 157;

4] Union of India Vs. Y. S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 Supreme Court

161;

4] Dhirendra Pandua Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. AIR 2009 Supreme Court

163;

5]Manohar Pandit Marathe Vs. President, Sharda Vidya Prasarak

Mandal & Ors. 2014(5) ALL MR 116.

4] Shri P. A. Kadu, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1

supported the impugned order. According to him it was the case of the

petitioner in its written statement that the enquiry was conducted by

following all the Rules. He submitted that the Management intended to

avoid an adverse finding in that regard and therefore had moved the present

application. Shri S. B. Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader

appeared for the respondent no.2.

5] Having heard the respective counsel for the parties I do not find

that the School Tribunal erred in rejecting the application below Ex. 23.

The learned Presiding Officer has observed that it was necessary to find out

whether the enquiry was vitiated only on technical grounds or whether there

were other reasons to hold so. It was further held that the entire appeal

ought to be considered on merits and without hearing the appeal such

permission to conduct de novo enquiry could not be granted. This approach

of the School Tribunal cannot be faulted. The judgments relied upon by the

wp5924.15

learned counsel for the petitioner consider the situation after final

adjudication of the appeal by the School Tribunal. The ratio therein is

therefore clearly distinguishable on facts. In view of aforesaid there is no

case made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction. By observing that the

petitioner can raise the plea regarding grant of liberty to hold denovo enquiry

when the appeal is heard, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

                               ig                             JUDGE

    svk