ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this writ petition, petitioner No., employer and petitioner No. 2- Headmaster/Chief Executive Office challenged the judgment dated 4-4-1994 passed by the School Tribunal in No .. 75 of 1993-A holding that departmental enquiry conducted by the petitioner against present respondent No.2 was not in accordance with law and the quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 29-4-1993. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to reinstate him with continuity and backward.

2. It is an admitted position that though this Court has issued Rule matter, no interim relief was given and hence the petitioners rein respondent No.2 in service respondent No.2, during the pendency of per has attamed the age of superannuation and has retired on 31-3-2006.

3. I have heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Shri Haq, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in the above background.

4. Shri De, learned counsel states that the School Tribunal has four the petitioner No. 2 could not have functioned as Chief Executive Office departmental enquiry against respondent No.2. He has invited attention provisions of Rules 2(c) of Maharashtra Employees of Private S (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as MEPS Rules appoint that. the management is empowered to appoint any person as Executive Officer. In this context, he invites attention to the resolution date 1992 passed by the Managing Committee, appointing petitioner No.2 as Executive Officer. He contends that therefore, School Tribunal was not that the enquiry has been vitiated on that count. He further states that said finding, School Tribunal has not considered the charges and adduced before Enquiry Committee against respondent No.2 on merits.

tention that entire application of mind by the School Tribunal is only , to technical requirements and as the School Tribunal has found that technical requirements are not fulfilled, the impugned order has been , therefore, states that if the Court is satisfied that there is no technical the matter, writ petition will have to be allowed or then it will have to ed back in any case for finding out whether the charges are proved. He states the School Tribunal could not have straightway granted reinstatement respondent No.2 in support, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh ported at (1996) 9 see 322. It is his argument that even if the enquiry be vitiated, the management is to be given chance to prove misconduct fore the matter needs to be remanded back either to the departmental i.e. Enquiry Officer or School Tribunal i.e. respondent No.1. He is at as the School Tribunal has not considered the grievance in the appeal the Court should after recording appropriate finding on the arguments , remand the matter back either to School Tribunal or to the employer owners.

5. Shri Haq, learned counsel, on the other hand states that petitioner No.2 Chief Executive Officer and he has not been appointed as Chief J e Officer. He points out that the resolution passed is in violation of Rule ) of MEPS Rules. He further states that in view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.S.P. MandaI vs. lalindar, 2006(2)

748, there is no question of remand of matter back to the School Tribunal to the petitioners to prove misconduct before the School Tribunal. He states that as the employee has retired on 31-3-2006 after attaining the age annuation and as MEPS Act or MEPS Rules do not contain any provision the petitioners to continue with Departmental Enquiry, even after retirement, the employer cannot continue departmental enquiry after 31-3-2006. es upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi . s. Board of Directors, O.S.F.E, reported at (1999) 3 see 666, to substantiate his contention. He argues that in these circumstances, departmental has lapsed and therefore the petition needs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document