2024:BHC-AS:43133 501-WP-2835-2019+.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2835 OF 2019 Modern Mumbai Educational Academy through its Chairman/Executive Rajendra J. Ghorpade …Petitioner Versus Mrs. Mangal Pravin P. Kalbhor & Ors. …Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.296 OF 2018 Smt. Mangal P. Kalbhor (Patil) …Petitioner Versus Rajendra Ghorpade, Managing Trustee, Modern Mumbai Education Academy, Mumbai & …Respondents Ors.

Mr. S. A. Rajeshirke a/w. Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane, Advocates, for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2835/2019 and for the Respondent No.1 in CP/296/2018.

Mr. Rajeshwar G. Panchal a/w. Mr. Sarang S. Gundajwar, Mr. Kailas Jadhav and Mr. V. G. Panchal, Advocates, for the Respondent No.1 in WP/2835/2019 and for the Petitioner in Contempt Petition No.296/2018.

Ms. Vaishali S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 5^th AUGUST 2024 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Panchal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3-State.

2. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28^th July 2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Mumbai (“Tribunal”) in Appeal No.16 of 2016. The said Appeal was filed by the present Respondent No.1 challenging order of termination dated 26^th May 2016 passed by the Petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal set aside the termination order dated 26^th May 2016 and remitted the matter to the management for fresh inquiry against the Respondent No.1 on the same charges from the stage of issuing statement of allegations as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services), Regulation Act, 1977 (“MEPS Act”) & the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services), Rules, 1981 (“the MEPS Rules”). It is further directed that the Respondent No.1 shall be given full opportunity to give reply to the statement of allegations, Charge- sheet, examine and cross-examine the witnesses. It is further directed that the reliefs claimed by the Respondent in the Appeal shall be decided after the final outcome of the inquiry. It is further directed that during the course of the inquiry, the Respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be under suspension. The said inquiry was directed to be completed within a period of four weeks.

3. The Petitioner initially filed Writ Petition No. 4292 of 2018 challenging the impugned order. The Respondent No.1 filed the Contempt Petition No. 296 of 2018 on the ground of non-implementation of the impugned order. As there was some technical defect, the said Writ Petition No. 4292 of 2018 was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 30^th January 2019 with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition and accordingly, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition No. 2835 of 2019. This Writ Petition has been admitted on 5^th August 2019 and interim relief has been granted staying the execution of the impugned order.

4. Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed on the following main grounds:

i. Statement of allegations was not issued by the President of the Petitioner - Trust.

ii. Charge-sheet was not issued by the President of the Petitioner - Trust.

iii. The President was not the member of the Inquiry Committee.

Mr. Rajeshirke, learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order has been passed by observing that the above three aspects are in violation of Rule 36(1) as well as Rule 36(2)(b) of the said Rules.

5. At this stage only, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time, the President of the Petitioner – Trust was one Pravin Kalbhor i.e. husband of the Respondent No. 1 whose services were terminated by