Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC/05/2011, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the MEPS Act”). The appeal filed by the respondent no.3 employee challenging the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been allowed and the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been quashed and set aside and the respondent no.3 – employee is directed to be reinstated in service to her original post in continuity of service with all consequential benefits and also the back-wages from the date of termination.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.3 employee was working as an Assistant Teacher. She was placed under suspension on 01.07.2010, pending disciplinary enquiry against her. On 03.07.2010 the statement of allegations and the charge sheet was served and after holding an enquiry, she was terminated from service on 29.12.2010, holding that all the charges against her have been proved.

4. The School Tribunal has set aside the termination of the respondent no.3 – employee from service by an order dated 29.12.2012 on technical grounds. The charges of misconduct levelled against the respondent no.3 employee have also not been established. The technical grounds on which the enquiry is set aside are as under;

(i) that the convernor of the enquiry Committee was an illiterate lady having passed only 6th standard, whereas the respondent no. 3 was working as Assistant Teacher possessing qualification of M.A. B.Ed.,

(ii) that the State-awardee teacher Mr. Dhandare, who was member of the Enquiry Committee, resigned from his post on 01.09.2010 and the management appointed one Shri P.D. Deshmukh, another State Awardee teacher as member of Enquiry Committee w.e.f. 09.09.2010, which was not permissible,

(iii) that non payment of subsistence allowance and not obtaining permission of the Education Officer for suspension;

(iv) witnesses were examined during the course of enquiry in the absence of respondent no.3 who was at the relevant time admitted in the Hospital, thus, there was lack of opportunity provided to the respondent no.3.

(v) The summery of proceedings of enquiry as required by Rules was not supplied to the respondent no.3.

5. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 employee submits that once the tribunal has gone into the merits of the charges and recorded the finding, the question of remitting the matter back to the management to hold denovo enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act does not at all arise. It is his further submission that the power of the School Tribunal to permit the management to lead evidence to establish the acts of misconduct is totally different from such power which is conferred upon the Labour or Industrial Court under the provisions of the labour laws. According to him, the School Tribunal can permit the management to lead the additional evidence to prove the acts of misconduct only after it is established that there is a compliance of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC as the School Tribunal exercises all appellate powers as are conferred upon the appellate Court functioning under the provisions of C.P.C.

6. The question involved in the present petition is as to whether the tribunal was right in passing the order of reinstatement, continuity in service with full back-wages, without leaving option to the management to hold denovo enquiry when it has held that the enquiry conducted by the management vitiates on technical defects. The another question is whether the tribunal was right in going into the merits of the charges levelled against an employee to hold that the charges of misconduct levelled against her have not been establi