This Reference has been made on account of conflict of views expressed by the Division Benches of this Court regarding the powers of the School Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”/”MEPS ACT” for short). Conflict of Views :

2. In Writ Petition filed by the Children's Education Uplift Society against Shri Narayan H. Sukhaja bearing W.P.No.463 of 1983, decided on 12.8.1987 (unreported), the Division Bench has taken the view, that it is open for the School Management to lead evidence before the School Tribunal to prove misconduct of the employee, in the following words: “5. However, the Tribunal has erred in setting aside the order of termination of the services and granting reinstatement only on that ground. Once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the constitution of the committee was improper, the correct course was either to order a fresh inquiry with the constitution of a new committee, or to hold the inquiry itself into the merits of the charges. It appears that the Tribunal is not aware of its powers under the Act. Sections 10 and 11 of the Act read together give ample power to the Tribunal as are vested in the appeal Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Tribunal could therefore, have remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry or disposed of the matter by recording the evidence itself. The failure on the part of the Tribunal to do so has resulted in an avoidable delay of about four years and has undoubtedly resulted inconvenience to both the parties.” Another Division Bench in Gurumaharaj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another v. Jalindar Mahadeo Kedar and others, reported in 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 748 held that the Management has no right to lead evidence/ additional evidence in the proceedings filed under section 9 of the Act, before the School Tribunal, to prove the misconduct of the employee where either no enquiry or defective enquiry is held. The said conclusion has been arrived at on the grounds, namely; (i) Inquiry under the Act and the Rules is not akin to domestic inquiry; (ii) The powers of the Tribunal cannot be equated with the powers of the Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act; (iii) Permitting the Management to lead evidence before the Tribunal would amount to truncating the powers under section 11(2) of the Act; (iv) The School Tribunal exercises appellate powers and, therefore, there is no question of leading evidence before it; (v) The Enquiry Committee is neutral and the inquiry conducted by the Committee cannot be equated with the domestic inquiry and; (vi)The report of the Enquiry Committee is binding on the management. It may be stated here itself that the attention of the learned Division Bench was not invited to the earlier decision aforementioned touching the question.

Factual Score :

3. The appellant was a permanent teacher working in Shukracharya Vidyalaya, Miregaon run by respondent no.1. On 15.12.1998 there was a gathering of the students in the School. During the night the appellant after knocking the door of the house, where one of the students; who was a member of the Scheduled Caste was staying with her married sister, forced entry in the house and committed rape on her. The appellant succeeded in rescuing himself although he was chased by some students. On the same night report was lodged against the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter in the course of investigation several statements were recorded which disclosed the involvement of the appellant in the offence of rape on his students. Several parents of the girl students from the village made representation to the school authorities to take immediate action and threatened agitation against the Management if no action was taken. The incident was widely published. The management took cognizance of this fact and came to the conclusion that it was impossible t