The importance of following the principles of natural justice and statutory rules in conducting enquiries, and the petitioner's entitlement to back wages and suspension allowance in the event of a subsequent punishment.

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was terminated on 20/01/2009, which was challenged by preferring an appeal before the School Tribunal bearing No.JAL/11/2009. The School Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 20/09/2013, concluded that Rule 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, have not been followed in conducting the enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was, therefore, quashed and set aside.

3. In the operative part of the impugned order, the employer has been granted the liberty to either give up the de novo enquiry and grant all reliefs to the petitioner or to conduct a de novo enquiry. Option was also given to the employer to suspend the petitioner pending the de novo enquiry, if so opted for. However, the employer was directed to first reinstate the petitioner in employment and then to place him under suspension, if so preferred and in the event of conducting a de novo enquiry.

4. Grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is that from the date of termination i.e. 20/01/2009, till the date of reinstatement and suspension, back wages need to be paid since the respondent employer cannot be granted an opportunity to take advantage of its own wrong. As an alternative submission, the petitioner contends that the suspension be relegated back to the date of first dismissal and the suspension allowance be therefore paid till 18/11/2012. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been reinstated on 18/11/2012 and has been immediately suspended on the same date.

5. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Vikas Mandal and another Vs. Education Officer and another, reported at 2007(3) Bom. C.R. 281. Attention of this Court is drawn to paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment, which read thus:-

“8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants, Rule 37(6), which is mandatory in nature, has not been strictly complied with. The Inquiry Committee comprising of three members, as already noticed, only one member nominated by the Management has submitted his Enquiry report within the time stipulated as per Rule 37(6) and admittedly, the other two members nominated by the employee and an independent member have not submitted their report within the time prescribed under Rule 37(6). However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, though noticed that the two members out of three found the employee not guilty, failed to appreciate that the said findings by the two members of the Committee were submitted after the expiry of the period prescribed under Rule 37(6). In our opinion, the report submitted by individual members is also not in accordance with the Rules. When the Committee of three members are appointed to enquire into a particular matter, all the three should submit their combined report whether consenting or otherwise. Since the report is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions, the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a serious error in accepting the said report and acted on it and thereby ordering the reinstatement with back wages. Since the reinstatement and back wages now ordered are quite contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 37(6), we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal, and learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench of the High Court. In addition, we also set aside the order passed by the Management based on the report submitted by the single member of the Committee, which is also quite contrary to the Rules.

9. In view of the order now passed by this Court, the Rule 36(2) is now to be invoked and as per the said Rule, one member from amongst the members of the Management is to be nominated by the Management or by the President of the Management if