JUDGMENT :

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

1. By these two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, both the parties i.e. the management and the teacher have impugned the order dated 30th June, 2011 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai partly. By consent of parties, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these two petitions are as under:-

2. Shri Gurukul Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another were the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before the School Tribunal whereas Smt. Sharada Ashok Suryagandh the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2393 of 2011 was the appellant before the School Tribunal. The said Smt. Sharada Ashok Suryagandh is described as the Assistant Teacher whereas the said Shri Gurukul Shikshan Prasarak Mandal is described as the Management herein in the later part of this judgment.

3. On 14th June, 1993, the said Assistant Teacher was appointed on probation for a period of two years by the Management. The said Assistant Teacher applied for leave for a period of three months commencing from 26th November, 1993 since she had delivered a baby boy on 26th November, 1993. It is the case of the Assistant Teacher that she reported for the work after three months from the date of delivery of the child. The Management told her that her services were not required. The Management also obtained a forced resignation from her. She protested against the said resignation by addressing a letter to the Management. On 14th June, 1994, the Management agreed to allow the said Assistant Teacher to report for work.

4. The said Assistant Teacher accordingly reported for work on 14th June, 1994. On 27th March, 1995, the Management terminated the services of the said Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 30th April, 1994. The said Assistant Teacher thereafter preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Management allowed the said Assistant Teacher to resume the duties w.e.f. 16th June, 1995.

5. It is the case of the said Assistant Teacher that on 5th May, 2000, the said Assistant Teacher was seriously ill and was advised to undergo medical surgery. After undergoing the said surgery, she reported for work on 5th May, 2000. The Management however refused to allow her to work without disclosing any reason and was asked to get the medical certificate from the Medical Board of J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. On 3rd August, 2000, the said Assistant Teacher furnished the medical certificate to the Management. It is the case of the said Assistant Teacher that the Management refused to allow her to report for duties. On 13th October, 2000, the Management allowed the said Assistant Teacher to report for duties on 18th September, 2000. The said Assistant Teacher was issued a charge-sheet which was received by the said Assistant Teacher on 22nd September, 2000.

6. The Management thereafter conducted an enquiry against the said Assistant Teacher and issued a letter of termination on 16th April, 2001. The said Assistant Teacher filed an appeal before the School Tribunal. By an order dated 31st March, 2008, the School Tribunal allowed the said appeal preferred by the Assistant Teacher. Sometime in the year 2008, the Management filed a writ petition bearing no. 4282 of 2008 in this court. By an order dated 20th June, 2008, this court restored the employee employer relationship between the said Assistant Teacher and the Management.

7. The Chief Executive Officer of the Management issued a fresh statement of allegation against the said Assistant Teacher. Since the charge-sheet was issued against the said Assistant Teacher by the Management was in English, the said Assistant Teacher by her letter dated 2nd May, 2008 requested the Management to issue a charge-sheet in Marathi language as required under the rules. On 12th August, 2010, the Management terminated the services of the said Assistant Teacher. The said Assista