1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27.6.2008 passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati, dismissing Appeal No.21 of 2006 challenging the termination of the services of the petitioner as a Junior College Teacher by an order dated 18.7.2006, making the termination effective from 19.7.2006, on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee for the alleged acts of misconduct.

2. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a permanent employee and was working as a Junior College Teacher. On 27.2.2006, the chargesheet along with the statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner, containing the charges

(i) that he utilized the letter pad of the School and prepared the false salary certificate under the forged signature of the Principal, (ii) that he misbehaved with the superiors, (iii) that he tampered with the attendance register of the non-teaching employees, (iv) willful negligence in performing duties, (v) remaining absent without obtaining prior permission, (vi) delayed checking and submission of the answersheets, (vii) dereliction of duty and misleading the Management, thereby brining it to disrepute, and (viii) delayed reporting on duty and leaving early without obtaining prior permission. The Enquiry Committee was constituted consisting of three persons, which included one representative of the petitioner-employee. The summary of the proceedings were forwarded to the petitioner on 10.7.2006 and the ultimate order of termination was issued on 18.7.2006 making the termination effective from 19.7.2006.

3. The basic challenge before the School Tribunal was regarding non-supply of the copies of depositions of eight witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Committee, which has resulted in breach of Rule 37(2)(c) and (d) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, “the MEPS Rules”), causing prejudice to petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, could not cross-examine the witnesses and defend the proceedings effectively. The Management had refused to supply the copies of depositions of the witnesses on the ground that there was no provision under the MEPS Rules for supply of such copies, and in the ultimate proceedings of enquiry forwarded to the petitioner, there contained the depositions of all the witnesses. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding that the petitioner has failed to establish the violation of the said provision. The School Tribunal has held that the ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, but the petitioner had refused to avail such opportunity and hence there was no question of breach of the principles of natural justice.

4. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon Rule 37(2)(c) and (d) of the MEPS Rules requiring the Management to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. According to him, the “reasonable opportunity” includes providing of the copies of depositions of the witnesses examined by the Management in support of the charges. He has further relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 2218, and The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2335. Shri Patil, the learned counsel, has further urged that the entire enquiry was vitiated on account of breach of natural justice and the net result of it, would be that the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement in service, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hamid Khan Nayyar s/o Habib Khan v. Education Officer, Amravati and others, reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 513.

5. Shri De, the learned counsel for the respondent-Management, has disputed the proposition that the “reasonable opportunity” contemplated by Rule 37(2)(c) and (d) of the MPES Rules inclu