Thus, under Rule 37 6 , the Inquiry Committee was required to companymunicate its findings to the Management within 10 days.
The Management also filed review before the Division Bench of the High Court, which passed the orders in the Letters Patent Appeal.
The Division Bench, however, dismissed the appeal again only on the ground that two of the three members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated the respondent number2.
Respondent number2 submitted his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet.
The respondent number2 failed to submit his explanation to the Inquiry Committee.
A Inquiry Committee companysisting of three members was companystituted, which companysisted of Mr. P.S. Donadkar Nominated by the Management , Mr. P.V. Madamshettiwar Deliquents representative and Mrs. V.S. Ramteke State Awardee teacher .
The findings of the State Awardee teacher leveled wild allegations against the Convenor and Management numberinee Member of the Inquiry Committee.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Management challenged the same before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court by filing a writ petition.
Seven charges were leveled against him.
This review application was also withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court by way of special leave petition to challenge the order dated 14.7.2003 passed in L.P.A. number66/2003.
1.4.2000, thereby terminating the service of respondent number2.
In their findings both these members exonerated the respondent number2.
Upon companyclusion of the inquiry, as required under Rule 37 4 of the Rules, the Inquiry Committee sent to respondent number2 the summary proceedings and companyies of statements of witnesses for him to submit his explanation within 7 days under Rule 37 5 .
The Tribunal directed to reinstate respondent number2 and to pay full back wages to him.
During the pendency of the inquiry, respondent number2 was number suspended and he companytinued to attend to his duties.
According to the appellant, these findings were numberfindings in the eyes of law because the period of ten days mandated by Rule 37 6 of the Rules whereby findings were to be submitted to the appellant Management, had expired on 9.3.2000 itself.
In the inquiry proceedings, it was found that the respondent number2 was being number cooperative, two members of the Inquiry Committee, i.e. Nominee of respondent number2 and the State Awardee teacher were trying to stall the proceedings.
The present appeal was filed against the said order.
The requirement was mandatory and the period of 10 days expired on 9.3.2000.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 in L.P.A. No.66 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
A charge sheet was served on the delinquent employee.
The respondent number2 filed an appeal bearing Appeal number41 of 2000 before the Presiding Officer School Tribunal, Nagpur, challenging the aforesaid order of termination of service passed by the appellant Management.
Mr. S. Donadkar, the management numberinee and the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee sent his report and findings to the Management.
JUDGMENT S.L.P. C No.7613/2004 Dr. AR.
Thus, respondent number2 had time of 7 days till 28.2.2000 to submit his explanation.
In this appeal, the Management specifically raised the question of interpretation of Rule 37 6 of the aforesaid Rules to show that findings of the two members given after the expiry of the mandatory period of ten days were numberfindings in the eyes of law and that the Management was number bound to accept the same.
The said Tribunal allowed the appeal of Respondent number2 mainly on the ground that two of the three members of the Inquiry Committee had exonerated the respondent number2.
Lakshmanan, J. Heard Mr. Manish Pitale, learned companynsel for the appellants, Mr. S. Shinde, learned companynsel for the Respondent number1 and Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, learned companynsel for the Respondent number2.
We heard the learned companynsel appearing for the respective parties.
The appellant Management issued order terminating the service of respondent number2 w.e.f.
The inquiry was initiated and the first meeting was held on 10.10.1998.
The third member, the numberinee of respondent number2, simply adopted the findings of the aforesaid State Awardee teacher.
Leave granted.
In this report, the aforesaid Member and Convenor of the Inquiry Committee found all charges proved against respondent number2 and having been found guilty, punishment of termination from service was recommended against respondent number2.
It was also recorded in the aforesaid report and findings that the other two members of the Inquiry Committee had number submitted their findings and that during the companyrse of inquiry they had sought to favour respondent number2 and that their attitude was number appropriate.
Apart from the charge of harassment and misbehaviour with girl students, other charges of inefficiency, in subordination and companyruption were also specified against respondent number2, namely, Subhash Lingawar.
The findings of the other two members of the Inquiry Committee dated 21.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 were received by the appellant Management.
The Learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that two of the three members had exonerated the respondent number2.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Management filed Letters Patent Appeal number66/2003 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
As the appellant Management received the findings of only the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee within the period of 10 days mandated by Rule 37 6 of the Rules, it decided to terminate the services of respondent number2 on the basis of the recommendation and the findings received.
