1. This petition is preferred by an employee challenging the judgment and order dated 9-4-2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissing Appeal No.16 of 2010 filed by him challenging his termination by an order dated 3-3-2010 from the post of Head Master, S.K. Kasim Urdu High School, Daryabad, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati.

2. The facts of the case are as under :

By an order dated 30-6-2004, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on probation with effect from 1-7-2004. He acquired the status of a deemed confirmed Assistant Teacher. He was thereafter promoted on the post of Head Master by an order dated 1-5-2008. On 22-1-2009, the Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Head Master. On 18-11-2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and an inquiry was conducted against him. On 25-2-2010, the summary of proceedings was forwarded to the petitioner and he was called upon to furnish his explanation in respect of it. It is the case of the petitioner that he received the summary of proceedings on 2-3-2010. By an order dated 3-3-2010, the services of the petitioner were terminated. Thus, the termination was by way of punishment after holding an inquiry.

3. The petitioner filed Appeal No.16 of 2010 before the School Tribunal challenging his termination. In Ground E of his memo of appeal, a specific averment was made that the summary of proceedings dated 25-2-2010 calling upon the petitioner to furnish his explanation was received by him on 2-3-2010 and his services were terminated by an order dated 3-3-2010. In response to this specific averment, the stand of the Management was that the summary of proceedings dated 25-2-2008 received by the petitioner on 2-3-2010 is not correct. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding in para 23 of its judgment that the summary of proceedings was received by the petitioner on 4-3-2010. On the basis of this finding, the Tribunal has held that there was no violation of Rule 37(4) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of service) Rules, 1981 (for short, “the MEPS Rules”) so as to vitiate the order of dismissal. It is not necessary for this Court at this stage to consider the other findings recorded by the School Tribunal for dismissal of the appeal, as the petition needs to be allowed only on one ground, viz. violation of the provision of Rule 37(4) of the MEPS Rules.

4. The question is whether the provision of Rule 37(4) is substantive in character so as to invalidate the order of termination upon its violation. In order to appreciate this question, the provisions of Rule 37(4), (5) and (6) of the MEPS Rules are relevant and hence the same are reproduced below :

“37. Procedure of inquiry.

(4) The Convener of the Inquiry Committee shall forward to the employee or the Head, as the case may be a summary of the proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses, if any, by registered post acknowledgement due within four days of completion of the above steps and allow him a time of seven days to offer his further explanation, if any.

(5) The employee or the Head, as the case may be shall submit his further explanation to the Convener of the Inquiry Committee within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the summary of proceedings etc., either personally or by registered post acknowledgement due.

(6) On receipt of such further explanation or if no explanation is offered within the aforesaid time the Inquiry Committee shall complete the inquiry and communicate its findings on the charges against the employee and its decision on the basis of these findings to the Management for specific action to be taken against the employee or the Head, as the case may be, within ten days after the date fixed for receipt of further explanation. It shall also forward a copy of the same by registered post acknowledgement due to the employee or the