1 in his writ petition and at the same time also allowed respondent No.1 to withdraw his writ petition.
The intervener also stated that having regard to the fact that respondent No.
1 appeared and participated through his representative one Mr. Keshavarao Dahake.
1958 of 2015 out of which this appeal arises before the High Court.
The charge sheet companytained as many as 17 charges levelled against Respondent No.
In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal, the relevant facts need mention in brief infra.
1 which he is alleged to have companymitted in discharge of his duties as Assistant Teacher.
1958 of 2015 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, Nagpur, cancelled the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL termination order of respondent No.1 and permitted Date 2017.07.17 164446 IST Reason him writ petitioner to withdraw his writ petition.
Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved of this action of the School Management, filed a civil suit and sought stay of the proceedings initiated against him.
Respondent No.
1 was in school since long and secondly, some charges have also number been proved against him, particularly the charge in relation to mass companyying, the Management Committee has resolved to withdraw his termination and reinstate respondent No.1 in service of the school.
One group of the Committee, who are prosecuting this appeal, supported the termination order of respondent No.1 before the School Tribunal and the High Court in the writ petition and wanted the termination to be upheld whereas the other rival group was opposing the termination order and was keen to settle the matter with respondent No.1 by withdrawing his termination order and reinstating him in service.
1 and are also ready to cancel his termination.
STN10/2010 before the School Tribunal at Nagpur as provided in the Rules.
By order dated 30.01.2015 Annexure P 6 the School Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the termination order holding it legal and proper.
1, felt aggrieved of the order of the School Tribunal, filed writ petition W.P.No.
The Inquiry Committee on 20.03.2006 submitted the report, which runs into 43 pages Annexure P 3 .
The matter eventually went to the High Court at the instance of the respondent in writ petition W.P. No.
It is number necessary to set out the details of the charges here except to mention that perusal of the charges would reveal that most of them were quite serious in nature.
In addition, the charge leveled against the petitioner of his involvement in mass companyy was number supported by any material in the investigation carried out by the investigation agency and the investigation agency sought discharge of the petitioner from the criminal charges leveled against the petitioner.
1, felt aggrieved of his termination order, filed appeal being Appeal No.
In this situation, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition in view of the resolution passed by the management companymittee dated 15.1.2017.
The Committee by majority held all the 17 charges proved against respondent No.
Hingna, District Nagpur, Maharashtra.
On 26.06.2003, Respondent No.
The Trust is running one school by and under the name of Swami Vivekanand High School at Waddhamana in Tah.
892/2004 wherein the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the companysent of the parties by order dated 22.11.2005 and directed the Inquiry Committee to companyclude the inquiry within 4 months strictly in accordance with the provisions of the MEPS Rules.
Both parties, i.e., the appellant School Management and respondent No.1, filed documents and examined the witnesses in support of their case.
He filed his reply and denied the charges levelled against him.
The Managing Committee of the School then appointed Three Member Inquiry Committee to hold an inquiry into the charges levelled against respondent No.1 as per the provisions of the MEPS Rules and submit the report.
Respondent No.
The School Management companycurred with the report and keeping in view the gravity of the charges which stood proved, terminated the services of respondent No.1 by order dated 01.02.2010 Annexure P 5 .
It was opposed by other group who was supporting the termination, i.e., the group which has filed this appeal.
The affairs of the school is managed and looked after by the Managing Committee of the Trust.
1 was served with charge sheet as per the procedure prescribed under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Conditions of Service Regulation Act hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules .
The writ Court accepted the aforementioned statement of the intervener and on that basis set aside the order of the Tribunal impugned by respondent No.
1 was working as Assistant Teacher in this school.
The School Management Employer on being numbericed of the appeal filed reply and defended the termination order including the inquiry report.
It appears from the record that during the pendency of the writ petition, the disputes started inter se Members of the Management Committee of the Trust resulting in emerging of two rival groups in the Management of the school.
Respondent No.
There is a Trust called Shubham Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Waddhamana, Nagpur 23.
This rival group of Committee Members, therefore, filed intervention application in the writ petition and made a statement that they have resolved to reinstate respondent No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 16.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
The Inquiry Committee then held an inquiry wherein respondent No.
The Inquiry Committee held several sittings.
