JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri Dhole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jibhkate, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Hiwase, the learned AGP, for Respondent No.3. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, dismissing Appeal No. STN/15/2002, filed under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, (in short “the M.E.P.S. Act”), challenging his dismissal from service by an order dated 14.02.2002. The tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of an Assistant Teacher as he was not possessing the training qualification of B.Ed. The tribunal has further held that the petitioner was qualified for being appointed as Physical Training Instructor (P.T.I. In short), but, in fact, he was not appointed as P.T.I. It has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act. The appeal has, therefore, been dismissed. 3. It is not possible to sustain the findings recorded by the School Tribunal. The approach adopted by the School Tribunal is totally misdirected. The services of the petitioner were dismissed by an orders dated 14.04.2002, which is reproduced below; “To, Shri Prakash Shalikram Kadoo, At Borgaon (Dhurkheda), At Kalmeshwar, Distt. Nagpur. This is to inform you that Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha, Dhapedwada, has carefully gone into the report of Inquiry Committee in the meeting held on 14.02.2002. After thorough examination of the said report, its findings, decision and charges proved against you, the Management has decided to impose punishment of dismissal from service and hence you are hereby dismissed from the service of our School w.e.f. 14.02.2002 A.N. There, I, Ku. Jaya M. Nemad, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer of Gandhi Shikshan Sanstha, Dhapewada, in pursuance of the resolution of the Management dated 14.02.2002 dismiss you from the services as P.T.I., of Shree Gajanan High School Adasa w.e.f. 14.02.2002 A.N. Your name shall stand strucked off from the muster roll of the School. Hence this order. Sd/ Secretary and Chief Executive Officer” It is apparent from the aforesaid order of dismissal that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the charge of misconduct and it is on the basis of the report of Enquiry Committee, that his services were terminated. Hence this order. Sd/ Secretary and Chief Executive Officer” It is apparent from the aforesaid order of dismissal that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the charge of misconduct and it is on the basis of the report of Enquiry Committee, that his services were terminated. The order is ex-facie punitive and casts a stigma. Once the Management decides to dismiss an employee after holding an inquiry, by a stigmatic order, such termination cannot be justified on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post or that he was appointed on purely temporary basis having no right to post. It is well settled that the services of even temporary employee cannot be terminated by way of punishment without holding an inquiry. The tribunal ought to have gone into the merits of the inquiry conducted and the findings recoded in the report and could not have dismissed the appeal on the findings so recorded. 4. Even if it is assumed that the appointment of the petitioner was on temporary basis, it was open for the management to terminate the service by an innocuous and simplicitor order of termination or on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was as a stopgap arrangement, without following the procedure prescribed under Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act or that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post. This has not been done. On the contrary, the order is ex-facie punitive and it casts a stigma on the service career of the petitioner and hence, the School Tribunal ought to have gone into the validity of an inquiry conducted and the findings recorded. There was no occasion for the school tribunal to go into the question as to whether the petitioner was appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy or whether appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with Section 5 of the M.E.P.S. Act or whether the petitioner was qualified to hold the post or not. 5. In view of above, the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal cannot be sustained and it will have to be set aside with an order of remand. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal STN No. 15/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. In view of above, the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal cannot be sustained and it will have to be set aside with an order of remand. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal STN No. 15/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the School Tribunal, Nagpur, to decide it afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made this Court. No orders as to costs.