JUDGMENT :- By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 27-8-1998 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner had joined the service of respondent - management on 1-7-1970 as Junior Clerk. Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him, charges were framed, enquiry was held and he was dismissed from service by order dated 13-12-1990. The petitioner had filed appeal before the School Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal. The School Tribunal has upheld that order. The submission made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, sub section (2)(d) of Section 11 of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act 1977 confers powers on the School Tribunal to award such lesser punishment as it may specify in lieu of dismissal. The learned counsel submits that it is observed by the School Tribunal itself in its order that the date of appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Clerk was w.e.f. 1-7-1970 and the date of his dismissal was 13-12-1990, thus the petitioner had completed more than 20 years of service, and therefore, he was entitled to pension. In the submission of learned counsel therefore, the School Tribunal should have considered the question whether while denying fresh employment or reinstatement to the petitioner, he could be awarded, pensionary benefits, which he earned because of completion of 20 years of service. 2. I have gone through the order passed by the School Tribunal. It is evident from that order that the School Tribunal was alive to the fact that the petitioner has rendered more than 20 years of service. Considering that there is power conferred on the School Tribunal to award lesser punishment, in my opinion, it would have been in the interest of justice, had the Tribunal considered whether in the facts and circumstances of this case lesser punishment of the nature of giving pensionary benefits to the petitioner which he had earned because of completion of 20 years of qualifying service should be given to him or not. 3. The respondent is represented by lawyer, the matter was on board yesterday, none appeared for the respondent. It was therefore, kept back. Again it is called today, again none appears for the respondent. 3. The respondent is represented by lawyer, the matter was on board yesterday, none appeared for the respondent. It was therefore, kept back. Again it is called today, again none appears for the respondent. After having gone through the record and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in my opinion following order would meet the ends of justice the order passed by the School Tribunal dated 27-2-1998 is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Tribunal only for consideration of the following aspects. 4. Whether awarding of a lesser punishment to the petitioner whereby though he is denied reinstatement or fresh employment, benefit of pension can be made available to the petitioner. Tribunal shall consider this question in the facts and circumstances of the case and make an order in accordance with law. Considering that the matter has been pending in this court for a long time, the Tribunal shall - make its order as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this order is received by the tribunal. Rule disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.