1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioners should be permitted to conduct a fresh inquiry against the Respondent No.1 in view of the fact that earlier inquiry was found to be defective as a consequence of which, the order imposing punishment of termination of service of Respondent No.1 came to be set aside by the School Tribunal.

2. The petitioners have filed the above petition impugning the order passed by the School Tribunal, Solapur dated 17-4-2007. By the said order, the appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 herein being Appeal No. 8 of 2007 came to be allowed and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the Respondent No.1 from the date of her termination i.e. 30-12-2006 and be paid 50 per cent of the back wages. . The factual matrix involved in the above petition is stated thus, .

The Respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the school run by the Trust known as Shri Sant Savata Ashram Shikshan Samiti. The petitioners are the office bearers of the said Trust. Initially, the said Trust was running a primary school and thereafter the said Trust had secured permission for the secondary school and started the said secondary section in or about year 1995. The Respondent No.1, having acquired higher qualification of B.P.Ed. in the year 1999-2000 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the secondary school and thereafter she was promoted as Head Mistress from 1-1-2005 which appointment was also approved by the Education Officer by order dated 27-4-2005. The Respondent No.1 was issued a statement of allegations dated 24-2-2006 in respect of two charges levelled against her which the Respondent No.1 replied within the time stipulated by the Management. The Respondent No.1 was thereafter issued the charge sheet on 1-5-2006 with an additional charge incorporated therein.The Management thereafter proceeded to hold enquiry against the Respondent No.1 by constituting an Inquiry Committee and based on the findings of the Inquiry Committee terminated the services of the Respondent No.1 on 30-12-2006. The Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the said termination, filed appeal before the School Tribunal, Solapur which came to be numbered as Appeal No. 8 of 2007. The Respondent No.1 in the appeal memo has specifically raised the grounds regarding the manner in which the inquiry was conducted against her and especially the ground that the inquiry was not initiated by the person competent to initiate it in terms of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MEPS Rules’ for the sake of brevity) and also the ground that the constitution of the Inquiry Committee was not as contemplated in the said Rules and also that the termination order has been issued by a person who is not competent to issue the said order in terms of the said Rules. The petitioners herein filed their say to the said Appeal and contended that the inquiry has been properly conducted against the Respondent No.1 and denied that the constitution of the Inquiry Committee or the termination of the Respondent No.1 was improper. The learned Member of the School Tribunal came to a conclusion that the inquiry conducted against the Respondent No.1 was vitiated on account of the fact that there was breach of Rule 36(1), 37 and 38 of the MEPS Rules inasmuch as though the President of the Management ought to have issued the statement of allegations, the same was issued by the Chairman of the School Committee who is incompetent to issue the same. The learned Member of the School Tribunal relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1992 Mh. L. J. p. 216 in the matter of Kankubai Shrvikashram Trust and others vs. K