JUDGMENT :

1. The three writ petitions are filed by three distinct employees, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the School Tribunal, permitting the management to conduct a fresh inquiry, though it set aside their termination and directed reinstatement as well as back wages.

2. Since the facts involved in these three writ petitions fall in same conspectus, the three petitions are argued together and disposed off by this common Judgment.

Heard the learned Counsel Shri. Suresh M. Kulkarni for the petitioner in WP No. 5224/2017, learned Counsel Shri. V. D. Salunke for the petitioner in WP No. 4037/2017, learned Advocate Shri. R. J. Godbole for the petitioner in WP No. 5075/2017, learned Counsel Shri. B. L. Sagar-Killarikar for the School Management in all the petitions and the learned Counsel Shri. V. C. Patil holding for Shri. U. B. Bondar for the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur, in Writ Petition No. 5075 of 2017. Since the parties expressed consensus to argue the petitions finally, I deem it appropriate to grant Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

3. The brief background would reveal that the petitioners on possessing the requisite qualifications, were appointed by the respondent no. 1 – management in the respondent no. 2 – school by following due process of selection and subsequently the appointment of Shikshan Sevak, was converted into a regular appointment as Assistant Teacher.

Since certain discord occurred between the management and it’s employees, on the issue of transfer, non-payment of salaries etc., and since the employees of the management including the petitioner protested against the alleged acts of the management, it is their allegation that a criminal complaint came to be lodged against them by the Secretary of the management alleging that a fight had ensued on 16.01.2013 and the petitioners were responsible for the same. Though the defence of the petitioners is, they were beaten by the persons in the management and they had also filed a criminal complaint against the Secretary and other persons in the management, which was registered as an N.C., this incident, however, had it’s own repercussions. The management ultimately terminated their services but this was done without conducting a departmental enquiry and the petitioners approached the School Tribunal by filing an Appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “MEPS”) challenging their termination without adhering to the procedure prescribed.

The Tribunal set aside the termination order on the ground that the procedure as prescribed under the MEPS Rules was not followed and the respondent/management was directed to reinstate the petitioners and the management was permitted to conduct an enquiry as per provisions of Rule 28 (5) r/w Rule 36 and 37 of the MEPS Rules within a period of 120 days, after affording necessary opportunity to the petitioners to participate therein and they were also held entitled for the back wages.

As a consequence of the said order, the management conducted an inquiry but the contention of the petitioners is that it was not in consonance with the Rules under the MEPS and specifically Rule 36 and 37 and the inquiry was conducted without adhering to the principles of fair opportunity and as expected, it again resulted into termination orders being issued against the petitioners.

4. Once again the petitioners approached the School Tribunal by filing an appeal and urged that the inquiry is vitiated on account of non-adherence of the procedure contemplated under the MEPS Rules and this time, the Tribunal was convinced that the inquiry was not as per the rules and, therefore, allowed the appeals partly, by setting aside the impugned termination orders and a direction was issued to the management to reinstate the appellants (petitioners) on the original post