NETAJI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) Petitioner-Management has filed the present petition challenging the Judgment and order dtd. 21/1/2012 passed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Pune (Tribunal) in Appeal No. 60 of 2010. The Appeal was instituted by Respondent No. 3 challenging the order of termination of his services without holding disciplinary enquiry. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Tribunal has set aside the termination order dtd. 4/10/2010 as well as the findings of the inquiry committee. Tribunal has directed reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 with effect from 4/10/2010 with further directions to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of calling for the explanations of Respondent No. 3 under Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Services (Conditions of Services) Rules 1981 (Rules of 1981). The management is directed to seek permission from the Education Officer to keep Respondent No. 3 under suspension and to pay him subsistence allowance during pendency of enquiry. The Tribunal has held that Respondent No. 3 shall not be entitled to back-wages but has granted him liberty to claim the same as and when any contingency arises.

(3.) Petitioner is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950 and also a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. It runs a school by name Jawaharlal Vidyalaya. Respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Nehru Shikshan Sanstha in its School Nageshwar Vidyalaya, Nimone, Tal. Shirur. He was declared surplus and came to be absorbed in Petitioner's School with effect from 17/7/1995. Respondent No. 3 claims that an attempt was made in the year 2006 to terminate his services without issuance of show cause notice on allegation of misbehavior with a girl student. That Deputy Education Officer, after conducting enquiry, held the charge as not proved and directed Respondent No. 3 to join duties.