JUDGMENT 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. In Appeal No. 116/1996 filed under Section 9 of the M.E.P.S. Act, the School Tribunal has set aside the order of termination passed on 28.07.1996 on the basis of the enquiry conducted and has directed the management to conduct a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, from the stage of constitution of Enquiry Committee as per Rule 36(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. The School Tribunal has further directed the management to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner, from the date of the judgment of the School Tribunal, till the completion of the enquiry. The question of reinstatement of the petitioner in service and payment of his backwages is left to be decided, upon the out come of the enquiry, by the management. The employee has preferred this writ petition, to the extent it permits the management to conduct fresh enquiry from the stage of the constitution of the Enquiry Committee as per Rule 36(2) of the M.E.P.S. Rules. 3. It is the claim of the petitioner-employee in the present writ petition that the School Tribunal should have directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full backwages. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not a case where the School Tribunal could have directed the management to conduct a fresh enquiry in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 370 , which has relied upon the decision of the another learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Yavatmal Islamia Anglo Urdu Education Society and another vrs. Mujib Ahmed Abbas Ali and another reported in 2010 (1) ALL MR 810. 4. Shri Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Management has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society and another vrs. School Tribunal, Nagpur and others, reported in 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 879, in support of his contention that the course of action adopted by the School Tribunal is correct and justified. 4. Shri Khare, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Management has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society and another vrs. School Tribunal, Nagpur and others, reported in 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 879, in support of his contention that the course of action adopted by the School Tribunal is correct and justified. He further concedes to the position that the petitioner-employee shall be entitled to payment of subsistence allowance as if the employee was placed under suspension on the date of the order of termination i.e. 28.07.1996 without payment of arrears upto the date of passing of the order of the School Tribunal on 12.02.2014. 5. The School Tribunal has recorded the finding in paragraph 56, to which Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited my attention. The said paragraph is, therefore, reproduced below. “56. For the reasons mentioned supra, it is held that the management has failed to prepare the charge sheet against the appellant, the management has not appointed Mr. Syed Mohsin as convenor of the inquiry committee; but he was appointed as nominee of the management and he has acted as convener of the inquiry committee also and hence the inquiry is vitiated as per the case laws mentioned supra. The evidence is not recorded as provided in the rules. For these reasons, it is held that all provisions of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules, 1981, are not followed during the inquiry conducted against the appellant. Therefore, negative finding is recorded against this issue” Shri Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the finding recorded by the School Tribunal that the constitution of the Enquiry Committee was vitiated on account of appointment of Mr. Syed Mohsin who was occupying the post in dual capacity, as a convenor of the Enquiry Committee and a nominee of the management. He, therefore, submits that the School Tribunal was justified in taking this view by following the decision of this Court delivered in W.P. No. 2636/2008, decided on 21.01.2009. He further submits that the School Tribunal has also held that the evidence is not recorded as provided in the Rules and hence the provision of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules were not followed during the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. 6. He further submits that the School Tribunal has also held that the evidence is not recorded as provided in the Rules and hence the provision of Rules 36 and 37 of the M.E.P.S. Rules were not followed during the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. 6. Once, the findings of fact as aforerstated, are not challenged, the matter remains no longer res-integra in view of the decision which I have rendered in case of Bhartiya Seva Acharya Education Society and another vrs. School Tribunal Nagpur and others, reported in 2012(2) Mh.L.J. 879. In the said decision, I have taken the view that the case of defective enquiry, is considered at par with the case of no enquiry, even in cases arising out of the disciplinary proceedings conducted under the M.E.P.S. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. I have taken a view that once the constitution of the enquiry committee is found to be defective, there was no question of School Tribunal going into the merits of the charges levelled against the employee and there was also no question of management seeking any permission to prove the misconduct by making out a case of leading additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. In such a situation, the order of de-novo enquiry needs to be passed. Therefore, the view taken by the School Tribunal in the present case cannot be faulted with. 7. Coming to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya's case, it was a case where the question involved was regarding the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal to record its findings on each and every aspects after holding the constitution of enquiry committee to be defective. If such findings are recorded in consonance with the evidence and documents brought on record by the parties, then the question of interfering with the findings of School Tribunal does not arise. This court was dealing with the question of granting permission to the management to lead additional evidence in terms of Section 107 read with Order XLI, Rule 27 of C.P.C. The view taken by the learned Single Judge turns upon the facts of the case and there is no dispute about the principle of law laid down therein. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the management shall pay the subsistence allowance to the appellant as if the appellant was placed under suspension with effect from the date of his termination from service i.e. 28.07.1996 without payment of arrears of subsistence allowance till 12.02.2014. Rest of the order passed by the School Tribunal does not call for any interference. No order as to costs.