1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 04/10/2016 as well as today.

3. There is no dispute that respondent No.1/employee was appointed on 14/06/2011 and while he was under probation, a show cause notice dated 30/07/2012 was issued to him leveling allegations against him. After completing the enquiry under the MEPS Rules, the employee was awarded the punishment of reduction in rank by order dated 29/03/2014.

4. The employee approached the School Tribunal in Appeal No.3/2014. By the impugned judgment dated 09/10/2015, the enquiry was held to be unsustainable from the stage as prescribed under Rule 36(1) of the MEPS Rules, 1981. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to conduct a fresh enquiry. The observation of the School Tribunal that the appellant be treated under suspension and be paid suspension allowance from the date his termination, has been subsequently corrected since the appellant was never terminated and hence there was no question of keeping him under suspension as he was reduced in rank and he continued in employment.

5. After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and upon going through the voluminous record available, I do not find any reason to cause an interference in the impugned judgment, except to consider the request of the petitioner that the Chair Person /President of the petitioner John Wilson Education Society, would find it impossible to be a party to the Enquiry Committee.

6. Rule 36(2)(b) requires that the President shall be the Member of the Enquiry Committee, if the Head of the Institution is being subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the instant case, the appellant is the Head of the particular Institution at Dist. Jalna. Therefore, the President will have to be the Representative of the Management in the Enquiry Committee.

7. The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ganesh Mahadeorao Thawre Vs. Central Hindu Military Education Society, Nashik and another, [2007(6) Mh.L.J. 589] has concluded in paragraph Nos.12 to 15 as under :-

“12. Rule 36(2)(b) of the MEPS Rules undoubtedly requires that in case of an enquiry into misconduct of head, one of the members of the Committee shall be the President of the Management. The word “management” has defined in Clause 12(c) of section 2 of the MEPS Act which does not necessarily require “management” to be the incorporated society. It can be a body of persons administering such school within such incorporated entity. How the school is to be administered is prescribed by the byelaws of the society and since such byelaws empower the Branch Managing Committees to control the affairs of the school, chairman of such Branch Managing Committee would be the President of “management” for the purpose of Rule 36(2)(b) of MEPS Rules.

12. The learned Advocate Shri Anjan De then placed reliance on judgment in National Education Society Vs. Mahendra, reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 202. This is a judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in reference case. The reference pertained to manner in which the situation should be dealt with when the Head Master would himself to be Chief Executive Officer, is a delinquent to be charge-sheeted. This judgment does not, in any manner, help the petitioner's arguments that no one except President of the society would answer the description of the management and therefore, the President of the Branch of the society cannot take part in the disciplinary proceedings.

14. Such inference also pragmatically follows, if one were to consider the plight of the President of a society running hundreds of schools. If by interpreting the provisions of section 2(12) of the MEPS Act and Rule 36(2)(b) of MEPS Rules, such a president was required to participate at all enquiries against the heads of his schools, he would have nothing else to do.

15. We further observe that the entire emphasis or t