JUDGMENT Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 28th March, 2012, passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No.STC/05/2011, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the MEPS Act”). The appeal filed by the respondent no.3 employee challenging the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been allowed and the order of termination dated 30.12.2010 has been quashed and set aside and the respondent no.3 – employee is directed to be reinstated in service to her original post in continuity of service with all consequential benefits and also the back-wages from the date of termination. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.3 employee was working as an Assistant Teacher. She was placed under suspension on 01.07.2010, pending disciplinary enquiry against her. On 03.07.2010 the statement of allegations and the charge sheet was served and after holding an enquiry, she was terminated from service on 29.12.2010, holding that all the charges against her have been proved. 4. The School Tribunal has set aside the termination of the respondent no.3 – employee from service by an order dated 29.12.2012 on technical grounds. The charges of misconduct levelled against the respondent no.3 employee have also not been established. The technical grounds on which the enquiry is set aside are as under; (i) that the convernor of the enquiry Committee was an illiterate lady having passed only 6th standard, whereas the respondent no. 3 was working as Assistant Teacher possessing qualification of M.A. B.Ed., (ii) that the State-awardee teacher Mr. Dhandare, who was member of the Enquiry Committee, resigned from his post on 01.09.2010 and the management appointed one Shri P.D. Deshmukh, another State Awardee teacher as member of Enquiry Committee w.e.f. 09.09.2010, which was not permissible, (iii) that non payment of subsistence allowance and not obtaining permission of the Education Officer for suspension; (iv) witnesses were examined during the course of enquiry in the absence of respondent no.3 who was at the relevant time admitted in the Hospital, thus, there was lack of opportunity provided to the respondent no.3. (v) The summery of proceedings of enquiry as required by Rules was not supplied to the respondent no.3. 5. (v) The summery of proceedings of enquiry as required by Rules was not supplied to the respondent no.3. 5. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 employee submits that once the tribunal has gone into the merits of the charges and recorded the finding, the question of remitting the matter back to the management to hold denovo enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act does not at all arise. It is his further submission that the power of the School Tribunal to permit the management to lead evidence to establish the acts of misconduct is totally different from such power which is conferred upon the Labour or Industrial Court under the provisions of the labour laws. According to him, the School Tribunal can permit the management to lead the additional evidence to prove the acts of misconduct only after it is established that there is a compliance of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC as the School Tribunal exercises all appellate powers as are conferred upon the appellate Court functioning under the provisions of C.P.C. 6. The question involved in the present petition is as to whether the tribunal was right in passing the order of reinstatement, continuity in service with full back-wages, without leaving option to the management to hold denovo enquiry when it has held that the enquiry conducted by the management vitiates on technical defects. The another question is whether the tribunal was right in going into the merits of the charges levelled against an employee to hold that the charges of misconduct levelled against her have not been established, when the tribunal finds that the enquiry was vitiated on technical grounds. 7. The Full Bench of this Court has considered the question in the decision of Saindranath Jagannath Jawanjal vrs. Pratibha Shikshan Sanstha and another, reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J. 753. In para 45, the Full Bench has considered the decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Punjab and others vrs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 , as under; “45. At this stage, it would be relevant to make reference to the cases of Government employees, who are protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 , as under; “45. At this stage, it would be relevant to make reference to the cases of Government employees, who are protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the punitive action leading to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank without holding enquiry is taken in case of Government employee, then no alternative is left for the Courts but to direct reinstatement with full back-wages. However, in the recent judgments, the Apex Court has adopted little different route and permitted the management to hold departmental enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in. In this behalf, readily available judgments are in the cases of State of Punjab and others vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey and another, (2005) 8 SCC 264 , U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. vs. P.C. Charturvedi and others, 2005 (8) SCC 211 ; wherein the Supreme Court has observed that in case of no enquiry or defective enquiry, proper relief is to set aside the dismissal with direction to the management to hold enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in and that the reinstatement is to be treated for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry and no more. So far as back-wages are concerned, the entitlement thereof is to make dependent on the final outcome of the fresh enquiry. In para 47, the question has been considered with reference to the provision of MEPS Act and Rules framed there-under and hence, para 47 is reproduced below; “47. The up shot of above is that the M.E.P.S. Act and Rules do not subscribe to the action of the management leading to inflicting major penalties without holding enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules. In this backdrop, in case of “no enquiry”, the school management cannot be allowed to justify their action, for the first time, before the School Tribunal. It is open for the School Tribunal to adopt the same route which has been adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy with some other cases noted supra, but the school management cannot be allowed to justify their action for the first time before the tribunal in case of no enquiry.” 8. It is open for the School Tribunal to adopt the same route which has been adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy with some other cases noted supra, but the school management cannot be allowed to justify their action for the first time before the tribunal in case of no enquiry.” 8. It is thus apparent t hat in case where the enquiry is found to be defective, the appropriate relief as has been held in Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy's case by the Apex Court is to set aside the order of dismissal with direction to the management to hold an enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in and that the reinstatement is to be treated for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry and no more. So far as the back-wages are concerned, the entitlement thereof is to make dependent on the final outcome of the fresh enquiry. The case of “defective enquiry” is considered on par with the case of “no enquiry”, even in respect of the cases arising out of disciplinary proceedings conducted under the MEPS Act and the Rules framed there-under. 9. In view of above law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, it was not permissible for the School Tribunal to go into the merits of the charges levelled against an employee and the tribunal should have set aside the order of termination and permitted the management to hold an enquiry from the stage the illegality has crept in and that the reinstatement of the respondent no. 3 is required to be treated for the purposes of holding fresh enquiry and no more. The question of payment of back-wages in such a situation also does not arise as it would depend upon the final outcome of the fresh enquiry. 10. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 – employee has urged that there was no permission sought by the management before the School Tribunal to lead evidence to establish the charges of misconduct. The tribunal has, therefore, rightly gone into the merits of the charges on the basis of the material available before it and has recorded the finding of fact that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee holding that the charges proved, are perverse. The tribunal has, therefore, rightly gone into the merits of the charges on the basis of the material available before it and has recorded the finding of fact that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee holding that the charges proved, are perverse. It is not possible to accept this argument for the reason that the matter is covered by the decision of the Full Bench as has been held in paragraphs 45 and 47, which are reproduced above. There was no question of the management seeking permission to prove the misconduct by making out a case for leading additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC. Once it is found that the enquiry was vitiated on the technical grounds, the course open for the tribunal was to permit the management to conduct denovo enquiry from the stage from which it is found to be vitiated. 11. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of enquiry by the management, the respondent no. 3 was placed under suspension. It is also not in dispute that as a result of the order passed by this Court, if the employee is to be treated under suspension then she will be entitled to subsistence allowance as per Rule 34 of MEPS Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2010 till the enquiry is completed by the management and the ultimate order is passed. According to the management, the employee is entitled to substance allowance to the tune of Rs.1,74,843/- on the basis of her salary in the scale of Rs.5000 – 9000 w.e.f. 01.07.2010 till this date. According to the respondent no.3 – employee, the arrears of subsistence allowance from 01.07.2010 would be to the tune of Rs. 6,26,514/-. The reliance is placed on Rule 34(1)(b)(iii) of the MEPS Rules. Accordingly, such calculations are also filed on record by way of affidavit. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, the management can be directed to pay to the respondent no.3 – employee an amount of Rs.1,74,843/-, which, according to the management, is the amount of arrears of suspension allowance w.e.f. 01.07.2010 till this date. Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the management submits that the Education Officer can be directed to resolve the dispute about the arrears of substance allowance payable to the respondent no. 3 – employee from 01.07.2010 till this date. Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the management submits that the Education Officer can be directed to resolve the dispute about the arrears of substance allowance payable to the respondent no. 3 – employee from 01.07.2010 till this date. He further submits that the management is prepared to pay the subsistence allowance in accordance with the decision which shall be given by the Education Officer. 13. In view of above, the writ petition is partly allowed and the following order is passed; (i) The judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. STC/5/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent it grants the respondent no. 3 continuity in service with all consequential benefits including the back-wages. (ii) The judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 passed by the School Tribunal to the extent it sets aside the termination and grant of reinstatement in service for the purposes of holding an enquiry does not call for any interference. (iii) Since the respondent no.3 employee was placed under suspension during the period of holding an enquiry, the respondent no.3 – employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.07.2010 and she will be entitled to substance allowance in accordance with Rule 34 of the M.E.P.S. Rules till the enquiry is concluded and the ultimate order is passed by the management. (iv) The management is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,74,843/- towards an undisputed amount of arrears of suspension allowance to the respondent no.3 employee within a period of two weeks from today. (v) The respondent no.3 – employee shall submit her claim for arrears of suspension allowance from 01.07.2010 till this date before the Education Officer, who shall after considering the rival contentions decide the total amount of arrears payable to the respondent no.3 towards arrears of subsistence allowance from 01.07.2010 till this date and the rate at which the management shall continue to pay the subsistence allowance to the respondent no.3 employee from this date till the conclusion of enquiry and the ultimate order to be passed by the management. (vi) The parties to appear before the Education Officer on 17th February, 2014 along with their rival claims and by 18th March, 2014, the Education Officer to resolve the controversy and pass an order in accordance with law. (vi) The parties to appear before the Education Officer on 17th February, 2014 along with their rival claims and by 18th March, 2014, the Education Officer to resolve the controversy and pass an order in accordance with law. (vii) The management is at liberty to hold the denovo enquiry against the respondent no.3 – employee from the stage the School Tribunal has found the said enquiry to be defective in accordance with the provisions of MEPS Act and Rules framed there-under. (viii) Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel appearing for the management submits that within a period of six months from today the entire enquiry shall be completed and ultimate order shall be passed. If such enquiry is not completed within a period of six months as stated before this Court, the order of suspension operating against the respondent no.3 shall stand revoked and the employee shall continue to work on the post and get a regular salary till the completion of such enquiry by the management beyond the period of six months. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No orders as to costs.