1 / 9 915-wp-3444-19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 3444 OF 2019

Shri. Gajanan Gramin Arogya Va Shikshan

Sanstha, Amravati and another

-- Petitioners

Vs.

Vilas Krushnarao Gulhane & Another

-- Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 176 OF 2022

Vilas s/o Krushnarao Gulhane & Another

-- Petitioner

Vs.

Shri Gajanan Gramin Arogya Va Shikshan

Sanstha, Amravati and others

-- Respondents

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - –

WP No.3444/2019

Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners

Mr. A.S. Dhore, Advocate for Respondent No.1

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, AGP for Respondent No.2

WP NO. 176/2022

Mr.A.S. Dhore, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, AGP for Respondent No.3

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 24^th JUNE, 2022

By these two petitions, the management as well as the

employee are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

02/04/2019, passed by the School Tribunal, Amravati.

MP Deshpande

2 / 9 915-wp-3444-19

2.

By the said judgment and order, the Tribunal intervened

with an order of termination of service issued by the

management and directed enquiry to be conducted de novo

from the stage of Rules 33 and 36(1) of the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules 1981.

3.

The principal ground on which the School Tribunal

intervened with the order of termination of service and

directed de novo enquiry to be conducted was that the

nominee of the management on the enquiry committee was

found to be biased and such an apprehension expressed by the

employee was accepted by the Tribunal on the basis of material

on record. It was found that in these circumstances, the

enquiry stood vitiated and that, therefore, de novo enquiry was

justified. The management is aggrieved by the aforesaid

direction and, therefore, the Writ Petition No.3444/2019, was

filed at the behest of the management, wherein stay of the de

novo enquiry was granted.

4.

On the other hand, the employee filed Writ Petition No.

176/2022, being aggrieved by the very same judgment and

order of the Tribunal, contending that in the present case,

when even a proper charge-sheet was not issued, there was no

question of the employee facing a de novo enquiry. It is

submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted entire relief

MP Deshpande

3 / 9 915-wp-3444-19

by directing reinstatement with back-wages and consequential

benefits, upon setting aside the order of termination of service.

5.

Mr. P.S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner – management submitted that the Tribunal

committed an error in passing the impugned order for the

reason that de facto prejudice was not brought on record by the

employee and that on mere apprehension, the Tribunal

concluded that nominee of the management i.e. one Mr.

Harish Gulhane was biased against the employee. It was

submitted that all the mandatory procedures prescribed under

the aforesaid Rules were followed and that, therefore, no

ground was made out for a de novo enquiry to be conducted.

6.

Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs.

Alok Kumar reported in (2010) 5 SCC 349.

7.

It was further submitted that there was no substance in

the Writ Petition filed by the employee for the reason that the

mat