1 wp 5364.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5364/2024 Jeevak Aushadhi Aarogya Shetki Sanshodhan Sanstha and others V Zolba and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Adv. for petitioners. Mr. A.B.Patil, Adv for respondent no.1. Mr. Lonare, AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.M. Joshi , J. DATE : 01-07-2025. This petition takes exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 29-04-2024, whereby it is held that the termination of the respondent is illegal and the same is quashed and set aside. To arrive at the said conclusion, it is held by the Tribunal that the circumstances in which the said order is passed, including the conduct of the inquiry, such order cannot sustain. 2. Learned Counsel for both sides are heard substantially. 3. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the facts of the case when there is order passed by the learned Tribunal running into 84 pages, practically no reasons are recorded and whatever the reasons appeared are cryptic in nature. 2025:BHC-NAG:6229 2 wp 5364.24.odt Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, vehemently opposes for interference in the order as well as for relegating the matter back to the Tribunal for hearing afresh. Learned Counsel has taken pains to draw attention of the Court to the enquiry proceedings and various documents on record in order to canvass that the findings ultimately recorded by the School Tribunal are justified. He also makes a grievance that this is a third round of litigation and an employees to go before the Court of law time and again it is not appropriate. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents may be justified in agitating the grievance of the respondent-employee of he being required to undergo multiple rounds of litigations. However, at the same time it cannot be forgotten that if there is any error committed by the Tribunal in passing the order impugned, none of the parties could be blamed for the same. In such circumstances, for want of fault of parties it cannot be allowed to be said that no order of remand can be passed solely for reasons of multiple rounds of litigation. 5. Perusal of the record indicates there are so many facts appearing on record which are required to be considered by the 3 wp 5364.24.odt Tribunal while deciding the issue of fairness of the inquiry and consequently justification of the termination order. Apparently, relevant/material facts are not considered/dealt with while passing impugned order. 6. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that an issue was raised by the counsel for the petitioner with regard to there being no specific issue framed by the Tribunal in respect of fairness of the inquiry. In response to the said submissions the counsel for the respondents submits that the parties were fully conscious of the issues involved in the proceedings and no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by non- framing of the issue. In view of the submission made before the Tribunal it can be said with certainty that the parties were conscious of the issue of fairness of enquiry and agitated the same. Further more, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by non framing of such specific issue. Thirdly, issues framed sufficiently cover this issue. Hence, though this Court is of the view that the proceeding is required to be relegated back to the Tribunal, the same is relegated back at the stage of final argument. 4 wp 5364.24.odt 7. In view of the chequered history of the litigation, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides of being heard expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months from today. (R.M. Joshi , J. ) Deshmukh