Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Judgment and Order of the School Tribunal, Pune, dated 23rd April, 2010, in Appeal No.47 of 2009. The School Tribunal has set aside the findings of the Enquiry Committee constituted to hold an enquiry against the respondent No.1 and consequently has set aside the decision of the petitioners to terminate the services of respondent No.1. The petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 w.e.f. 16th November, 2009. Liberty has been granted to the petitioners to conduct an enquiry against the alleged acts of misconducts committed by respondent No.1 after issuing a proper charge sheet under Rule 3 7(1) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (for short "the MEPS Act"), and thereafter to hold an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rule 37 of the MEPS Act. The School Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay salary to respondent No.1 from 20th August, 2009 till he is reinstated in service, before commencing the enquiry. It has further directed the petitioners to continue to pay the salary while the enquiry is pending. Costs for the proceedings have also been awarded.

3. The School Tribunal has held that the Enquiry Committee was constituted under the MEPS Act prior to issuance of the charge sheet whereas Rule 37(1) of the prescrided that the charge sheet must be issued within 7 days of the constitution of the Enquiry Committee. The School Tribunal has not accepted the contention of respondent No.1 that the Enquiry Committee was not properly constituted. However, it has concluded that the enquiry was held contrary to the principles of natural justice and that the procedural requirements of a valid enquiry as mentioned in Rule 37 had been violated. The infirmities found by the Tribunal in respect of the enquiry were as follows:

"36. The infirmities may be enlisted as follows:

(1) There was no proper charge sheet summarizing the charges against the Appellant and calling his reply to the same;

(2) No witness list was submitted by the Management and without such list it has all of a sudden recorded submission of its representative Shri. Vishwasrao in the name of recording the Management's case and without mentioning that it was by way of evidence and it has never called upon or given opportunity to the Appellant to cross-examine said witnesses;

(3) The proceeding of the enquiry Committee was abruptly stopped and concluded on 05.10.2009 by the Convener merely on the count of refusal of the Appellant and his nominee to sign the attendance sheet;

(4) Thereafter no meeting of the enquiry Committee was held till 03.11.2009;

(5) Despite the fact that no such meeting was held, the Convener has conducted the matter on his own in making correspondence with the Appellant and asking him to make his further explanation. Such explanation called by the Convener in his individual capacity does not meet the requirement of Rule 37(4) of the M.E.P.S. Rules;

(6) The Management has neither suspended the Appellant nor paid his salary during the period of enquiry. Thus there was contravention of M.E.P.S. Rules in conducting the enquiry."

4. The School Tribunal, therefore, set aside the enquiry conducted against respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Mhaispurkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that assuming the School Tribunal was right in setting aside the enquiry it ought to have directed that the respondent No.1 should be placed under suspension instead of reinstating him. He.submits that though the petitioners may not challenge the findings of the School Tribunal that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice, the order directing reinstatement while permitting the petitioners to hold a fresh enquiry was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandai & Anr. Vs. Education Officer & Anr., reported in 2007 (