Judgment : Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 3.4.2001 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 under the provisions of 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools [Conditions of Services] Regulation Act 1977 and setting aside the termination order dated 4.1.1997. The petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service with arrears of salary for the period from 1997 till the date of reinstatement. 2. It appears that the respondent no.1 was working as Assistant Teacher, with the petitioner society. The appeal was filed by the respondent no.1 against the order of termination of his services on 4.1.1997 w.e.f. 6.1.1997. The respondent no.1 had challenged the termination order on the ground that the enquiry committee was not constituted as per the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rules of 1981. It was the case of respondent no.1, that the respondent no.2 to the appeal, the General Secretary of the Society could not have been included in the enquiry committee. It was pleaded that there was a variance between the charge sheet and the show cause notice which caused prejudice to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 then pleaded that the enquiry was vitiated and perverse as leading questions were asked in the examination-in-chief. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that the enquiry committee had not held a free and fair trial as the evidence tendered by the respondent no.1 was not considered by the members of the enquiry committee. The respondent no.1 therefore, sought for the quashing and setting aside of the order of termination dated 4.1.1997. 3. The petitioners filed the reply and denied that the termination order was illegal. It was denied that the enquiry committee was not properly constituted. It was further denied that the General Secretary could not have been included as a member on the enquiry committee. All the other pleas and grounds raised in the appeal memo were denied by the petitioner. Certain facts were pointed out in the specific pleas and the petitioner sought for the dismissal of the appeal. On appreciating the material on record, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 3.4.2001 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1. 4. Certain facts were pointed out in the specific pleas and the petitioner sought for the dismissal of the appeal. On appreciating the material on record, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 3.4.2001 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1. 4. Shri Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the School Tribunal was not justified in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 without referring to and considering the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal erroneously held that the charges leveled against the respondent no.1 were not proved, though there was no material before the School Tribunal to hold so. It is then canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the School Tribunal erroneously observed that the enquiry was vitiated for noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 without recording a single reason for holding so. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the School Tribunal jumped to various findings without recoding a single reason for rendering them. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is not a reasoned order showing the application of mind by the Presiding Officer and hence the same may be quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought for remand of the matter to the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur. 5. Shri S.A. Bari, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 stated before the court that the respondent no.1 had taken away the case papers and the counsel has nothing to say in the said matter. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that in such circumstances he is not able to work out the matter. 6. Shri Ahirkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 supported the order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 3.4.2001 and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 3.4.2001. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that the order dated 3.4.2001 is an extremely cryptic order and does not show the application of mind by the School tribunal. 7. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 3.4.2001. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that the order dated 3.4.2001 is an extremely cryptic order and does not show the application of mind by the School tribunal. In the appeal memo grounds were raised by the respondent no.1 about the unfairness of the enquiry and about the improper constitution of the enquiry committee. The Tribunal observed that there was non compliance of the mandatory provisions laid down in rule 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981, however, not a single reason is recorded by the Tribunal for recoding this finding. The Tribunal then observed that the charges leveled against the respondent no.1 were not proved. However, there is no discussion of the evidence or for that matter any discussion whatsoever on this issue before recording the finding that the charges levelled against the respondent no.1 were not proved. The Tribunal also observed that the charges levelled against the respondent could not be proved because the enquiry was held contrary to the provisions of rules 36 and 37 of Rules of 1981. The findings recorded by the Tribunal show total non application of mind as nothing is considered by the Tribunal and no reasons are recorded by the Tribunal to reach to the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal in accordance with law after considering the material on record and after recording the reasons for recording the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The approach of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal is not just and proper. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur on 3.4.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Since the respondent no.1 is reinstated in service, after the order of termination and is working as Assistant Teacher, since long, the respondent no.1 should not be disturbed from the post of Assistant Teacher till the School Tribunal decides the appeal filed by the respondent no.1. Since the respondent no.1 is reinstated in service, after the order of termination and is working as Assistant Teacher, since long, the respondent no.1 should not be disturbed from the post of Assistant Teacher till the School Tribunal decides the appeal filed by the respondent no.1. Since the matter is an old one, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur is directed to decide the appeal as early as possible and positively within a period of six months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the School Tribunal. The School Tribunal would be required to issue notice to the respondent no.1 as the respondent no.1 is not effectively represented by the counsel before this Court today. Order accordingly with no order as to costs.