JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of the parties.

2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Latur Division Latur dated 24.07.2018. The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Ashram School run by Respondent No. 1, who came to be terminated by holding an inquiry by Respondent No. 1. The petitioner’s challenge to the termination order came to be turned down by the impugned order, the Petitioner is, therefore, before this Court.

3. The facts in short are that the Petitioner was duly appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher on 18.11.1996. His appointment in the Ashram School run by Respondent No. 1 was confirmed in the academic year 2019.2000 on receiving an approval by the concerned authority. The Petitioner, later on came to be appointed to the post of Head Master from the academic year 2001-2002. He worked as such till his termination. In 2010-2011, the Petitioner was subjected to an inquiry by the Management by issuing notice dated 21.11.2011 under the signature of the President. On completion of an inquiry, it is held that the charges against him are proved and accordingly the report was submitted. On receipt of the report from the Inquiry Officer, an order dated 03.08.2012 came to be passed terminating the Petitioner. The Petitioner challenged this order before Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Social Welfare, Latur, Region Latur, as the Petitioner was working in the Primary Ashram School.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that an Inquiry was not properly conducted. No sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to participate in the inquiry. An inquiry was against Rules 36, 37 of the MEPS Rules. The charges were not properly framed. Though the Petitioner was very much present in the School, he was shown as absent before the Inquiry Committee. The persons holding an inquiry were interested persons with bias. The President of the School is practicing Advocate, and therefore, it was necessary to allow the Petitioner to be represented through a Lawyer, however, he was not allowed to engage a lawyer. The appellate authority has not properly applied its mind. In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted that in view of Rule 36 (6) of the Rules, the meetings of the Inquiry Committee should be held in the School Premises during normal School hours or immediately thereafter. In view of Section 37 he submits that the charges were baseless and no proper charges were framed. There is no specific charge framed against the petitioner. The learned Advocate Mr. Barlinge, on these submissions prayed for allowing this Writ Petition.

5. Mr. Sapkal, the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that all the submissions of the Petitioner are in absence of pleadings to that effect. About the violation of Rules 36 and 37 there is no pleading in the petition. He attacked the petition stating that in fact no appeal was maintainable before respondent No. 2 as the services of the Petitioner are covered under MEPS Rules. In such case, the Petitioner ought to have approached to the School Tribunal, by way of filing an appeal. Appeal filed before Respondent No. 2 was not at all maintainable. About the merits of the matter, he submits that the points which are now tried to be canvassed before the Court were not pressed before the Appellate Authority. He, further submits that as a matter of record the Petitioner himself avoided an inquiry and therefore, the appellate authority has rightly held that the Petitioner avoided participation in the proceedings. Though the impugned order was passed in the year 2012, an appeal was filed in the year 2015. There is no explanation for such inordinate delay. The appellate authority itself has no jurisdiction. The service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by Primary Ashram (Primary) School Code. The Petitioner approached the wrong forum. He, further, submi