IMPORTANT POINT
The Tribunal lacks the authority to re-appreciate evidence or modify penalties unless there is a violation of natural justice; the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions of the MEPS Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Mehare, J. - The management as well as the employee have impugned the judgment and order of the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Latur, passed in Appeal No.16 of 2009 dated 01.10.2009.

2. Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.7446 of 2009 will be referred to as the "appellant", and the petitioners will be referred to as the "respondents" as to their original status before the School Tribunal.

3. The parties are not in dispute that the appellant was appointed by following due procedure of law. He was terminated on 30.04.2007. He had impugned that termination by Appeal No.51 of 2007. When the appeal reached for hearing, the respondents withdrew the termination order 30.04.2007 and ultimately, the appellant withdrew the appeal. Thereafter, on 18.12.2008, a show cause notice was issued to him framing 17 charges. Out of those six charges, the subject matter of the previous appeal was the same. The charges levelled against the appellant are summarized as follows :

(a) Consistent absence from the duties;

(b) Deliberate non-submission of the explanations;

(c) Failing to hold extra classes for the students;

(d) Not performing the educational work;

(e) Unnecessarily beating the students;

(f) Not staying at the headquarters;

(g) Adamant behavior with the seniors;

(h) Not participating in cultural programs;

(i) Deliberate negligence in discharging the duties;

(j) Doing the false correspondence against the society threatening to;

(k) Pressuring the school management and the students;

(l) Valuing of the answer sheets incorrectly and giving less marks.

(m) Causing disturbance during the inquiry process.

4. The appellant had levelled the allegations against the respondents that in 2007, respondent Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.2,00,000/- towards his appointment. He had paid Rs. 3,00,000/-at the time of his appointment. He refused to pay money again. Therefore, the respondents started harassing him and levelling false allegations. The respondents denied the allegations. However, the respondents have a case that the appellant was negligent in performing his duties and committed misconduct. Therefore, after due departmental inquiry, he was terminated. The Committee was constituted strictly as per the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 ('MEPS Act' for short). They also did not deny the termination and withdrawal of the earlier termination order. It was pleaded that the appellant used to leave the school without leave from the Headmaster. He was absent from 04.01.2006 and 15.01.2006 without leave and intimation. The Headmaster issued him notices. However, he did not improve his behaviour. The appellant made a false representation before the authority and published the newspaper news item, making false allegations against the institution. The students had many complaints against him. The complaints of misbehaviour with the female students were also received. Therefore, by following the due procedure of law, he was terminated.

5. The petitioner had impugned the termination order, contending that the inquiry committee was not constituted strictly as per the MEPS Act. A fair opportunity was not granted to him to contest the inquiry. The principle of natural justice has not been followed. He cannot be jeopardized for the same charges that were alleged earlier, and the termination order based upon those charges was withdrawn. He submits that one of the members of the inquiry committee, Mr. M.S. Karkare cannot be a judge of its case as he was convener cum member of the inquiry committee. The order sheets dated 08.04.2009 of the inquiry committee were also changed. The proceedings of the inquiry committee were violative of Rule 37 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ('Rules, 1981' for short). The whole proceeding was vitiated for violating the provisions of the M. E. P. S. Act

6. The learned Tribunal held that the appellant's services were illegally terminated on