The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the employee to defend himself and the consequences of breaching statutory rules and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

N. J. Jamadar, J. - Rule in Writ Petition No.1851 of 2018. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. Writ Petition No.1851 of 2018 calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2017 in Appeal No.103 of 2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Kolhapur, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 came to be partly allowed by setting aside the order of termination dated 13th October, 2014 and the matter was remitted back with liberty to the petitioner to conduct enquiry from the stage of recording of respondent No.1's evidence.

3. Contempt Petition No.130 of 2020 is filed by respondent No.1 alleging willful disobedience of the impugned order.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to these petitions can be stated as under:

(a) Petitioner No.1 is a Public Charitable Trust registered under Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950 ('the Act, 1950'). It runs Guruvarya Dadoji Konddev Sainiki School, at Tasgaon, petitioner No.2.

(b) On 1st July, 1992 respondent No.1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the City High School, Satara, another school run by petitioner No.1. On 7th July, 1997 respondent No.1 was promoted as the Head-Master in Guruvarya Dadoji Konddev Sainiki School, at Tasgaon.

(c) Alleging various acts of fraud, misappropriation of funds and misconduct in the discharge of duties by respondent No.1 as the Head-Master of the said school, a show cause notice was served on respondent No.1 on 6th July, 2011. The latter gave reply on 23rd July, 2011. By communication dated 25th August, 2011, respondent No.1 was informed that a decision to hold an enquiry in accordance with the provisions contained in Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 & Rules 1981 was taken. By the said communication, the constitution of a three member enquiry committee comprising of respondent Nos.1's nominee was also conveyed to respondent No.1 by the convener of the eqnuiry committee.

(d) In the intervening period, a number of proceedings were instituted at the instance of respondent No.1 challenging the institution of enquiry including RCS No.330 of 2011. Eventually, the enquiry commenced. Since the enquiry could not be completed, the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli - respondent No.2, sought extension of time for concluding the enquiry. Vide communication dated 3rd September, 2014, Deputy Director, Education, Kolhapur Division, extended time to complete enquiry by 40 days with a rider that time would not be extended thereafter for any reason whatsoever.

(e) Respondent No.1 assailed the said decision to extend the time by filing Writ Petition No.24299 of 2014. By an order dated 15th September, 2014 this Court declined to interfere with the said decision noting, inter alia, that the delay in conducing the enquiry was attributable to respondent No.1. This Court, however, granted permission to respondent No.1 to cross-examine the petitioner - management's witness.

(f) Recording of evidence of the petitioners witnesses was concluded on 22nd September, 2014. The petitioner No.1 closed its evidence. Respondent No.1 sought leave to file a list of witnesses and adduce evidence. The matter came to be posted to the following day.

(g) On 23rd September, 2014, Respondent No.1 filed a list of witnesses disclosing the name of Mr. Vishwanath Shridhar Deodhar as defence witness No.1 and sought an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Deodhar was unwell. The enquiry committee by majority decided to reject the prayer for adjournment. Thereupon respondent No.1 closed his evidence. Giving further time to respondent No.1 to submit his further explanation in accordance with Rule 37(4) of the Rules, 1981, the enquiry was adjourned to 4th October, 2014.

(h) Eventually, the enquiry committee submitted report on 10th October, 2014 and respondent No.1 wa