M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned counsels for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Besides, by order dated 18 December 2014, the parties were put to notice that this petition would be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27 August 2014 (impugned order) made by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 13 February 2014 made by the respondents – management, reducing the petitioner in rank from the post of Head Master to that of Assistant Teacher.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher at the Bhadole High School (School) vide appointment order dated 31 May 1993 effective from, 1 June 1993 and that such appointment was approved by the Education Department on 8 January 1995. The learned counsel for the management has raised some dispute with regard to such approval and it is a fact that such approval order dated 8 November 1995 has not been produced on record. Further, by order dated 1 August 1997, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Master. Such promotion, was approved by the Education Department on 21 January 1998. The approval order is placed on record at Exhibit 'C' to the petition.

4. In the year 2012 or thereabouts on the basis of an anonymous complaint, the Education Officer deputed by the Education Department conducted an inquiry. By communication dated 2 July 2013, the Education Officer has stated that the petitioner, pursuant to a show cause notice has furnished his explanation, however, such explanation is not found to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the Education Officer issued the following directions to the school management:

I. That the School should provide necessary infrastructural and educational facilities in terms of RTE Act 2009;

II. Necessary action should be taken against the petitioner in terms of the MEPS Rules 1981 and report compliance,

5. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the aforesaid directive dated 2 July 2013 the school management, resolved on 26 July 2013 that minor penalty of strict warning or censure be imposed upon the petitioner. The decision in this regard was communicated by the school management to the Education Officer as well as the petitioner by communications dated 14 November 2013. The resolution dated 26 July 2013 as well as two communications dated 14 November 2013 have been placed on record. The learned counsel for the school management, in the beginning, disputed that any such resolution was ever passed or the same were communicated vide letters dated 14 November 2013. However, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, there are clear averments with regard to the passage of resolution and communication. The copies of resolution and communications have also been placed on record. In the affidavit in reply filed for and on behalf of the school management, there is a vague and evasive denial with regard to the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 by styling the same as being 'totally false and misleading'. However, this is followed by the statement that the respondent – management in order to give a chance to make improvement in the work and behaviour of the petitioner, initially did not take any grave action. All this is sufficient to repeal the contention that the resolution dated 26 July 2013 was never passed or communicated.

6. Thereafter the petitioner was issued order dated 13 February 2014 imposing the major penalty of reduction in rank from the post of Head Master to that of Assistant Teacher. This order lists several acts of omission and commission, which have been described as 'major misconducts' or at least 'serious misconducts'. The order in its clause 14 also states that the petitioner, who possesses qualifications of M.Com and B.Ed., was, in the first place, not entitled to be appointed as the Assistant Teach