Judgment Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for rival parties. 2. In the instant petition, there is a challenge to the judgment and order dated 28.9.2011 passed in Appeal No.STN/44/2010 by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, by which the Tribunal set aside the order dated 9.8.2010 terminating the services of respondent no.1. It further directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. 3. In support of writ petition, assailing the judgment and order rendered by the Tribunal, Mr.Pardhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that termination of services of petitioner had taken place after holding a regular enquiry, as contemplated by Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (conditions of service) Rules 1981. The appellant/ management had filed written statement/reply to the memo of appeal filed by respondent no.1 before the School Tribunal and had taken a specific stand at the end of the said reply that in case the Tribunal finds the enquiry held to be not fair and proper, the management be permitted to hold de novo trial for proving the charges levelled against respondent no.1. However, according to Mr.Pardhi, said request was turned down by the Tribunal, which is wholly unsustainable and when the Tribunal itself found that the enquiry was not fair and proper, the only way left open was to hold enquiry de novo. The reason for asking such permission was that the Tribunal held that the member of the Inquiry Committee, Shri Varhade, who was the State Awardee teacher, was found to have acted in contravention of principles of natural justice, by putting leading questions to the witnesses and bringing answers hostile to respondent no.1 deliberately on record. But there is no finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was at the behest of the petitioner/management. Thus, according to Mr.Pardhi, there was justification for permitting de novo trial. The Tribunal went on recording finding on merits of the charges in contravention of its own findings that the entire recording of evidence was vitiated because of the conduct of the State Awardee teacher and, therefore, the Tribunal committed fallacy of thought in answering on the merits of the enquiry rather than ordering de novo enquiry. He, therefore, prayed for permission to hold enquiry. Mr. He, therefore, prayed for permission to hold enquiry. Mr. Pardhi has shown readiness on behalf of his client to pay subsistence allowance during the period of enquiry but he submits that subsistence allowance cannot be paid from the date of termination, i.e. 9.8.2010 and is ready to pay the same from the date of order of School Tribunal, i.e. 28.9.2011. 4. Per contra, Mr.Jibhkate, learned counsel for respondent no.1/employee justified the impugned order and argued that the employee had hardly been on duty at the place of transfer for 15 days and she was victimized. The victimization was in order to get rid of her services from the college. According to him, it cannot be believed that within a period of 15 days a lecturer upon transfer would start committing misconduct after misconduct, as alleged, and for which her services were terminated. According to Mr.Jibhkate, the Tribunal has gone through the materials available on record in the enquiry. Looking to the nature of charges levelled against the employee and considering service of 15 days, the Tribunal found the action of the management to be mala fide. Thus on merits also the Tribunal found in favour of employee and that is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction by this Court. Mr.Jibhkate then argued that there is no fallacy of thought, as argued by Mr.Pardhi, because the Tribunal is entitled to find whether the charges were really proved in the enquiry or not, and whether or not the enquiry was fair and proper. In the alternative, Mr.Jibhkate submitted if this Court allows the management to hold de novo enquiry then the same should not be relegated to the management but should be allowed to be conducted before the Tribunal. He also submitted that the subsistence allowance should be paid from the date of termination, i.e. 9.8.2010 and a time-bound programme should be fixed for disposal thereof. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also through the pleadings of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for rival parties. I have also perused the dicta laid down by the apex court as well as by this Court. 6. Lastly, he prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and also through the pleadings of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for rival parties. I have also perused the dicta laid down by the apex court as well as by this Court. 6. Perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal show that it categorically found that Mr.Varhade, who was a member of the Inquiry Committee, was State Awardee teacher. He had put leading questions to all the witnesses and obtained their answers in the manner he wanted and also recorded the same on the record of the enquiry. The Tribunal found that Mr.Varhade did not act impartially and taking advantage of the little knowledge of the parties he polluted the course of enquiry by adopting such method. He did not allow the production of documents or supply of documents to the delinquent before cross-examination of the witnesses. He conducted the enquiry in a hasty manner and when the delinquent had requested to allow her to examine Shri V.N. Meshram as her witness, he rejected her application to examine the said witness Shri Meshram as her witness. Thus the Tribunal categorically found that the said member of the Inquiry committee polluted the entire proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry by his whims and caprice and that is why in answer to issue No.4 the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not conducted in a proper and fair manner. Having once so held and having found that the evidence was vitiated because of the course adopted by Shri Varhade, the Tribunal, in my opinion, could not have proceeded to appreciate the evidence recorded by it and could not have held that the charges were not proved. In doing so the Tribunal forgot that it had already held that the evidence was tainted. The enquiry was vitiated because of conduct of Shri Varhade and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the merits of the charges on the said evidence is obviously faulty. It could not have relied upon such evidence, which it found polluted. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/ management had specifically sought leave of the Tribunal to hold de novo enquiry in case the enquiry was held to be not fair and proper. It could not have relied upon such evidence, which it found polluted. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/ management had specifically sought leave of the Tribunal to hold de novo enquiry in case the enquiry was held to be not fair and proper. The reason given by the Tribunal for not allowing de novo enquiry was that the charges were simple and enquiry was held without following due procedure, and that respondent no.1 would face starvation and embarrassment are not the reasons which were germane. As earlier stated, the Tribunal found fault with Shri Varhade-State Awardee teacher, who was responsible for polluting the Departmental Enquiry and not the management. To punish the management for the fault of the said teacher, who was member of the Inquiry Committee, would be unjust. In my opinion, the Tribunal should have allowed the management to hold de novo enquiry in the above factual background. I, therefore, hold that the Tribunal committed error in not permitting the management to hold de novo enquiry, since the Tribunal itself found that the enquiry was not fair and proper. 8. The next question is, whether the enquiry should be relegated to the management or to the School Tribunal. Mr.Pardhi has no serious objection if the Tribunal is asked to hold enquiry. In my opinion, in a case of this type where no much time is spent and looking to the nature of charges, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal itself conducts de novo enquiry. As to the subsistence allowance, as the apex court has allowed subsistence allowance in such eventuality from the date of termination, there is no reason for me to deviate from the said course and, therefore, agreeing with Mr.Jibhkate on the question of subsistence allowance, I make the following order. ORDER (i) W.P. No.6100 of 2011 is partly allowed. (ii) Impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2011 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STN/44/2010 is set aside. The proceedings are remitted to the School Tribunal by allowing the petitioner to conduct de novo enquiry before it on the charges levelled by the management against respondent no.1. (iii) The management shall be allowed to complete the evidence of its witnesses before 30.6.2012. Thereafter the Tribunal shall complete the evidence of respondent no.1, if any, before 31.7.2012 and then shall decide the appeal on or before 30.9.2012. (iii) The management shall be allowed to complete the evidence of its witnesses before 30.6.2012. Thereafter the Tribunal shall complete the evidence of respondent no.1, if any, before 31.7.2012 and then shall decide the appeal on or before 30.9.2012. (iv) Parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal. In case any of the parties is found to be not co-operating with the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall not hesitate to award exemplary costs to the erring party. (v) The management shall pay subsistence allowance and arrears thereof from the date of termination, i.e. 9.8.2010 to respondent no.1 on or before 15.6.2012 by A/c payee cheque. (vi) Future subsistence allowance shall be paid regularly at the end of each month by A/c payee cheque. (vii) Cost of Rs.2,000/-be paid to Advocate Jibhkate. (viii) The proceedings be sent back to the School Tribunal, Nagpur, immediately.