Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Management challenging the order dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has set aside the order dated 20.07.2013 terminating the services of the respondent-employee. The Tribunal has also given direction to reinstate the respondent-employee with continuity in service with all consequential benefits including salary and allowances.

2. The present writ petition is a result of protracted litigation between the parties and the earlier history of the litigation is required to be noted down by this court.

3. The respondent-employee, who was working as a Teacher in the petitioner's Institution, was issued a chargesheet dated 05.03.2009 wherein two charges were levelled against her. The charge No. 1 was in respect of writing a letter to the Chairman of Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi whereby reputation of the Institution was said to be maligned. The petitioner-Management felt that the respondent-employee with malicious intention against the Management and the Principal of Institution had written the said letter and thereby committed a serious misconduct which necessitated a disciplinary action.

4. The charge No. 2 was in respect of helping the daughter of the respondent-employee in writing correct answers during examination and the daughter of the respondent-employee was said to have been allowed by the respondent-employee to use whitener during examination and terming such action, the petitioner-Management thought that the respondent-employee committed a serious misconduct and the same was unbecoming of a Teacher of a prestigious school.

5. The respondent-employee had submitted her reply to the chargesheet and the same was not found to be satisfactory and departmental enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report dated 27.04.2009 and after an explanation being called from the respondent-employee, the petitioner-Management imposed punishment of 'removal from service' vide order dated 25.06.2009.

6. The respondent-employee had filed Appeal No. 30/2009 before the Tribunal challenging the punishment order dated 25.06.2009. The Tribunal by the order dated 25.02.2010 allowed the appeal of the respondent-employee and set aside the punishment order dated 25.06.2009 and the respondent-employee was held entitled to be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits of continuity in service, payment of salary and other allowance, etc.

7. The petitioner-Management had felt aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal dated 25.02.2010 and they challenged the same by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4007/2010 and this court disposed of the writ petition, filed by the petitioner-Management, vide order dated 02.11.2012 with liberty to hold disciplinary proceedings, as per the procedure prescribed under the law or any procedure prescribed under the Rules, framed by the petitioner's institution. The court further found that the respondent-employee would not be entitled to get salary for the intervening period and if the enquiry concluded in favour of the respondent-employee, then she was to be entitled for the wages during the intervening period and if the result of enquiry was against her, then she was not to be entitled for wages for the intervening period. The holding of enquiry was left to the wisdom of the petitioner-Management.

8. The respondent-employee felt aggrieved against order of the Single Bench of this court dated 02.11.2012 and she filed intra-court appeal being D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1654/2012 and the Division Bench disposed of her intra-court appeal with certain terms and conditions, as were agreed between the parties. The petitioner-Management was directed to change the Enquiry Officer and he was not to be connected with the emplo