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

2. Considering the submissions of the petitioner/Management, I am framing the following issue for decision:-

“How many times should the Management be permitted to conduct a denovo enquiry after the first departmental enquiry and the subsequent enquiry is quashed and set aside for being vitiated on account of the noncompliance of Rule 36 and/or 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 or for any other connected reason ?”

3. The first petition has been filed by the Head Master namely Mr. Raosaheb Mandlik, who is the real brother of the President of the Educational Institution and who is himself interested in occupying the post of Head Master, which was earlier held by respondent No.1 Smt.Alka Namdeo Khalekar. This petitioner, therefore, challenges the judgment and order of the School Tribunal dated 30/03/2016 by which Appeal No.35/2014 filed by respondent No.1 Smt.Alka Khalekar has been allowed.

4. The second petition is filed by Mr. Sonu Mandlik, who is the President of the Educational Institution, challenging the same judgment of the School Tribunal. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner in the first petition is referred to as the brother of the President. The petitioner in the second petition is referred to as the President. The original appellant before the School Tribunal, who is respondent No.1 in both the petitions, is referred to as the appellant.

5. The president and his brother are aggrieved by the judgment of the School Tribunal by which the appeal of the appellant has been allowed and her termination from service by order dated 11/04/2014 effective from 16/04/2014 has been quashed and set aside and she is granted reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. The de novo enquiry conducted against her has been set aside.

6. Mr. Godbole, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the President, supported by Mr.Chavan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the brother of the President, have contended that there is no prohibition on conducting a third denovo enquiry even if the first and the second departmental enquiry has been set aside for being vitiated.

7. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length and with their assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book and the judgments cited.

8. The appellant was appointed as an 'Assistant Teacher' w.e.f. June 1999. The school, at the relevant time, was operated on 'no grant' basis. Subsequently, the appellant was appointed as an 'Incharge Head Mistress” sometime in 2000. After completion of about 5 years in employment, the appellant was promoted as the Head Mistress. In 2004, the School received some percentage of grants. Approval is said to have been granted to the appellant appointed as 'Head Mistress'.

9. On 15/07/2010, the President claims to have issued a show cause notice to the appellant, who contends that she received an envelope containing blank papers so as to mislead her. After she heard about the show cause notice, she approached the Management and the Management stated that they would indulge in correspondence with her only through post. Again she received an envelope containing blanks papers. Thereafter, she heard from the School that a charge sheet was sent to her. She then received a copy of the charge sheet after it was placed on her table. The enquiry was conducted by the Management and the appellant was finally awarded the punishment of reduction to the position of an 'Assistant Teacher'.

10. Appeal No.70/2011 filed by the appellant before the School Tribunal was allowed by judgment dated 07/10/2013. Order of reduction in rank dated 28/06/2011 was set aside and the Management was granted the opportunity of conducting a denovo enquiry after the Tribunal concluded that the enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules.

11. The appellant herself filed WP No.10153/2013 before this Court challenging the permission granted by