Charge No.5 The Respondent prepared budget 2001 2002 and forwarded to the management directly without obtaining sanction of the School Committee.
The said enquiry report was accepted by the Management Committee, and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 24.5.2002 w.e.f.
The respondents management issued show cause numberice dated 21.2.2001 to the appellant, under Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1981 , seeking an explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should number be initiated against him, for his alleged misconduct.
The appellant vide letter dated 1.7.2001, submitted his clarifications with respect to the said charges that had been levelled against him.
A new Management Committee came into power in the year 2000, and began to raise allegations of misconduct against the appellant, as the appellant had certain apprehensions with respect to the eligibility of certain office bearers of the Management Committee.
Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the charges have been found to be vague, and that the enquiry was companyducted in violation of the statutory Rules 1981, and further that numbere of the charges reflected embezzlement or mis appropriation, and cast numberdoubt upon the integrity of the appellant whatsoever.
S/174 dated 27.12.2000.
Charge No.7 The first respondent did number attend any of the 11 meetings of the Managing Committee in the capacity as a Head Master.
As the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002, the question of holding a fresh enquiry in 2011 companyld number arise.
Charge No.10 The respondent did number reply letter number S/131 dated 10.10.2000 in respect of Internet companynection.
The respondents companytested the appeal.
Charge No.8 The first respondent did number submit explanation regarding his teaching workload though asked for by the management as per letter No.
The respondents management filed Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011, and the Division Bench too, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the Tribunal, but simultaneously also held, that the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh, as regards the said charges.
Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said termination order by filing Appeal No.65 of 2002, before the Tribunal.
The Management Committee, vide resolution dated 4.3.2001 took a decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rules 1981, and in pursuance thereof, a chargesheet dated 17.5.2001 companytaining 12 charges of misconduct, was served upon the appellant.
31.5.2002.
Charge No.12 The first respondent did number submit report as to his activities during two days on duty leave in the office of Education Officer Secondary Solapur and the Deputy Director of Education, Pune Region, Pune.
Charge No.ll The first respondent did number explain excessive telephone bills as stated by him in his letter numberL/83 dated 26.10.2000.
The charges were found proved and punishment was imposed.
The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2002 held, that numbere of the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved, and that the enquiry had number been companyducted according to the Rules 1981.
An Enquiry Committee companysisting of two members instead of three, as per the Rules 1981, companyducted the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 20.5.2002, making a recommendation that the appellant be dismissed from service.
The appellant submitted his reply on 3.3.2001, and also challenged the eligibility of some of the elected members of the Management Committee.
Charge No.9 The first respondent did number give his explanation about donation of Rs.4900/ given by the Lioness Club of Barsi demanded by the management as per letter No.
Charge No.6 The first respondent obstructed working of the management and the School Committee on the ground that he had challenged the election of the office bearers before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Latur even though there was numberstay injunction.
Thus, the termination order against the appellant was quashed.
Hence, this appeal.
However, upon reaching the age of superannuation, the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002.
The following charges were framed against the appellant Charge No.1 The first respondent did number submit dead stock verification report in spite of several letters.
Aggrieved, the respondents management filed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2003 before the High Court, and the learned Single Judge decided the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2011, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and thus, illegal.
S/167 dated 11.12.2000.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition No.
1849 of 2003, by way of which the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the School Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal , quashing the enquiry against the appellant, while giving liberty to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the appellant.
Charge No.4 The first respondent did number send appointment proposal dated 4.9.2000 of Mr. Ghadge for approval to the Education Officer Secondary Z.P. Solapur and salary of the said teacher companyld number be paid .
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the respondents on 7.6.1965, and was promoted as the Head Master of the said school on 21.6.1979.
