MEHER JAYSING DARANDALE Vs. RASHTRIYA PATHSHALA HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 1st August, 2015 delivered by the School Tribunal, Aurangabad, (for short, the Tribunal) in Appeal No.40/2014 by which the appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner had challenged the order of termination dated 22nd May, 2013 in the aforesaid appeal.

(3.) It was the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal that his services have been illegally terminated. It was his further contention that some false and frivolous charges were levelled against him and a farce of conducting an enquiry was created by the respondent/management. It was the further contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Committee, which is said to have conducted the enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner, was not constituted as per the MEPS Rules and more particularly Rule 36 thereof. It was his further contention that the procedure, as prescribed under Rule 37 of the MEPS Rules, was also not followed. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice were not followed in conducting the aforesaid enquiry. One more objection was raised by the petitioner that the report of enquiry, on the basis of which services of the petitioner were terminated, was signed by only one member of the Enquiry committee and as such, it was, in fact, not an enquiry report in the eyes of law and it could not have been acted upon. The petitioner had alleged that since the petitioner had opposed for transfer of the school run by the Respondent management, at some different place, he has been victimized.