Judgment :- 1. Heard Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Kirti Satpute, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1 and Shri D.B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.2. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The petition is filed by the Management/employer taking exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal by which the appeal filed by the respondent no.1/employee is allowed and the termination order issued by the Management is set aside and it is held that the respondent no.1 is deemed to have been reinstated in service from the date of his termination till he attained the age of superannuation. The Tribunal has directed that the respondent no.1/employee be treated to be in service and the petitioners are directed to pay 50% of the arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 for the period from 19th January, 2000 till 30th September, 2004. 4. It is undisputed that the appointment of the petitioner was after following the due procedure and his appointment was approved by the respondent no.2/Education Officer. The only issue which falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the enquiry conducted by the Management against the respondent no.1 is proper and according to the provisions of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1981”) and as to what reliefs the respondent no.1 is entitled. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Management has conducted enquiry against the respondent properly and according to the provisions of Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the Rules of 1981 and it cannot be said that there has been any major defect on the basis of which it can be said that the enquiry conducted against the respondent no.1 is vitiated. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated as the copy of statement of allegations was not sent to the respondent no.1 along with the chargesheet. It is submitted that the statement of allegations was given to the respondent no.1 and it is not disputed by the respondent no.1 and the view taken by the Tribunal that the statement of allegations should have been sent along with chargesheet also, is hyper technical. It is submitted that the statement of allegations was given to the respondent no.1 and it is not disputed by the respondent no.1 and the view taken by the Tribunal that the statement of allegations should have been sent along with chargesheet also, is hyper technical. The learned advocate has pointed out from the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee dated 7th September, 1999 that the copy of the statement of allegations was sent to the respondent no.1 along with the chargesheet. The learned advocate has submitted that in any case the non-supply of the copy of statement of allegations along with chargesheet cannot vitiate the enquiry inasmuch as the copy of statement of allegations was already given to the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 has not pointed out as to what prejudice is caused to the respondent no.1 if it is held that the copy of statement of allegations is not sent to the respondent no.1 along with the chargesheet. Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned advocate has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the State Awardee Teacher who was nominated on the Enquiry Committee could not have acted as the member of the Enquiry Committee inasmuch as his name was not included in the panel of State Awardee Teacher maintained by the Education Officer. It is submitted that there is no provision under the Rules of 1981 which requires the Management to nominate the State Awardee Teacher as the member of the Enquiry Committee only from the panel which is maintained by the Education Officer. It is submitted that the charges against the respondent no.1 were very serious, including the charge of misappropriation and the School Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 on technical grounds overlooking the seriousness of the charges against the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the charges against the respondent no.1 are proved in the enquiry which is conducted by competent Enquiry Committee and the decision taken by the Management to terminate the services of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the enquiry report cannot be said to be improper or unjustified. It is submitted that the charges against the respondent no.1 are proved in the enquiry which is conducted by competent Enquiry Committee and the decision taken by the Management to terminate the services of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the enquiry report cannot be said to be improper or unjustified. It is submitted that in any case the Tribunal could not have granted 50% arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 as there are neither any pleadings on the record nor the respondent no.1 has produced any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period when his services were terminated. 5. Ms. Satpute, the learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the copy of statement of allegations was not sent to the respondent no.1 along with the chargesheet and this is clear from the details of the annexures found at the foot of the chargesheet which shows that only two documents were sent along with the chargesheet i.e. (1) explanation of the respondent no.1 dated 10th April, 1999 and the copy of the explanation of the respondent no.1 dated 15th April, 1999. It is submitted that the provisions of Rule 37(1) of the Rules of 1981 mandate that the copy of statement of allegations should be sent to the delinquent along with the chargesheet. It is submitted that the charges framed against the respondent no.1 are vague and the copies of the documents on which the Management relied to make out the charges against the respondent no.1 were not supplied to the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the enquiry against the respondent no.1 is vitiated for the above reasons. In support of this submission, the learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni V/s. Y.P. Education Society and others reported in 2013(6) SCC 515 . Ms. Satpute, the learned advocate has submitted that the respondent no.1 had filed an application praying for permission to amend the memorandum of appeal on 14th November, 2011 to incorporate the pleadings showing that the respondent no.1 was not gainfully employed during the period after his services were terminated. It is submitted that the application praying for permission to amend the memorandum of appeal was allowed by the Tribunal and the petitioners had not filed any counter affidavit in the matter. It is submitted that the application praying for permission to amend the memorandum of appeal was allowed by the Tribunal and the petitioners had not filed any counter affidavit in the matter. The learned advocate has submitted that the respondent no.1 had filed Writ Petition No.5973/2012 challenging the denial of 50% arrears of salary by the Tribunal and this Court by the order dated 10th January, 2013 has dismissed the writ petition holding that the order passed by the Tribunal granting 50% of arrears of salary to the respondent no.1 is proper. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 had filed Letters Patent Appeal No.118/2013 in the matter which is also dismissed on 17th July, 2013. The learned advocate has submitted that in view of the orders passed in the above mentioned writ petition and the letters patent appeal, the directions given by the Tribunal to pay 50% of arrears of salary cannot be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 attained the age of superannuation in 2010. It is submitted that the Tribunal has held that enquiry conducted against the respondent no.1 was not proper and was not according to the provisions of Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the Rules of 1981 and, therefore, the decision terminating the services of the respondent no.1 on the basis of the enquiry report, is illegal and in view of the fact that the respondent no.1 has now attained the age of superannuation, there cannot be enquiry against the respondent no.1 as there is no provision under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and under the Rules of 1981 which enables the Management to conduct or continue the enquiry against the employee after he attains the age of superannuation. The learned advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Shah Babu Education Society, Patur and another V/s. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Amravati and Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad and another reported in 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 547 in support of this submission. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 7. Shri D.B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. has submitted that the respondent no.2/Education Officer has nothing to do with the lis between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. It is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. 7. Shri D.B. Patel, the learned A.G.P. has submitted that the respondent no.2/Education Officer has nothing to do with the lis between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of paying the arrears of salary on the Management and the liability cannot be fastened on the State exchequer. 8. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and examining the documents on the record of the writ petition, I find that the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 37(1) and Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 1981 are proper. Rule 37(1) of the Rules of 1981 lays down that the Management shall prepare the chargesheet containing specific charges and shall hand over the same together with the statement of allegations and the explanation of the employee or the Head as the case may be, to the Convenor of the Enquiry Committee and also forward copies thereof to the employee or the Head concerned by registered post acknowledgment due. The endorsement at the foot of the chargesheet show that two documents were sent to the respondent no.1 along with chargesheet and the copy of the statement of allegations was not sent along with the chargesheet. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners relying on the proceedings dated 7th September, 1999 cannot be accepted and the findings recorded by the Tribunal on this point relying on the documentary evidence on the record cannot be faulted with. It would be improper to reappreciate the material on the record and come to a different view when the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is on the basis of material on the record and it cannot be said to be perverse. 9. Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 1981 lays down that the Convenor of the Enquiry Committee shall forward to the employee, or the Head as the case may be a summary of the proceedings and copies of statements of witnesses, if any, by registered post acknowledgment due, within 4 days of the completion of the steps as per earlier provisions. In the present case the copy of the summary of the proceedings has been sent to the respondent no.1 under the signature of the Secretary of the petitioner/Society. In the present case the copy of the summary of the proceedings has been sent to the respondent no.1 under the signature of the Secretary of the petitioner/Society. As per the scheme of Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the Rules of 1981 there is difference in the constitution of the Enquiry Committee conducting the enquiry against the Head and the Enquiry Committee conducting the enquiry against the other employee of the school. As per Rule 36(2)(b)(i) of the Rules of 1981 the President of the Management has to be the member of the Enquiry Committee. As per the Rule 36(3) of the Rules of 1981 the President has to communicate the names of the members nominated on the Enquiry Committee to the Head against whom the enquiry is to be conducted. As per Rule 36(4) of the Rules of 1981 the Head against whom the enquiry is to be conducted has to communicate the name of the person nominated by him on the Enquiry Committee, to the President of the Management. As per Rule 36(5) of the Rules of 1981 in case of enquiry against the Head, the Convenor of the Enquiry Committee shall be the President of the Management. In the present case, the respondent no.1 being the Headmaster, the Convenor of the Enquiry Committee was the President of the Management and, therefore, the summary of the proceedings and copies of the statements of witnesses, if any, were required to be sent to the respondent no.1 by the Convenor of the Enquiry Committee i.e. the President of the Management. It is well established that if law requires anything to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in that manner only. Moreover, the Rules of 1981 provide for distinct authorities for the conducting of the enquiry against the Head of the school and against any other employee. The petitioners having failed to comply with Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 1981 and the summary of the proceedings and copies of the statement of witnesses having been sent to the respondent no.1 by the Secretary of the petitioner/Society, the enquiry is not conducted as per the provisions of Rule 37(4) of the Rules of 1981. 10. In paragraph no.5 of the impugned order it is recorded that the Secretary of the petitioner no.1/Society participated in the enquiry and was present throughout. 10. In paragraph no.5 of the impugned order it is recorded that the Secretary of the petitioner no.1/Society participated in the enquiry and was present throughout. It is not explained as to why the Secretary of the petitioner no.1/Society attended the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee. The Secretary of the petitioner no.1/Society is not required to do anything as per the Rules of 1981 in case of the enquiry conducted against the Head of the School. The presence of the Secretary in the proceedings of the enquiry, without any justification, shows that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. The Tribunal has rightly taken note of this circumstance. 11. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The order is based on proper appreciation of the material on the record and proper consideration of the provisions of Rule 36 and Rule 37 of the Rules of 1981. 12. It is undisputed that the respondent no.1 has attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the appeal before the School Tribunal and, therefore, there cannot be enquiry against the respondent no.1 after he attained the age of superannuation, as there is no provision in the Rules of 1981 which enables the Management to continue the enquiry against the respondent no.1 after he attained the age of superannuation. This view is supported by the judgment given in the case of Shah Babu Education Society, Patur and another V/s. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal Amravati and Aurangabad Divisions, Aurangabad and another (cited supra). Therefore, it has to be held that the respondent no.1 continued in the employment till he attained the age of superannuation and stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The Tribunal has rightly passed the order considering these aspects. 13. The submission is made on behalf of the petitioners that looking to the seriousness of charges against the respondent no.1, it should not be held that the respondent no.1 is entitled for the reliefs as granted by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the competent Enquiry Committee found that the charges against the respondent no.1 are proved and the respondent no.1 should not be granted benefit only on technical grounds because of some immaterial lapses in the procedure. It is submitted that the competent Enquiry Committee found that the charges against the respondent no.1 are proved and the respondent no.1 should not be granted benefit only on technical grounds because of some immaterial lapses in the procedure. However, in my view, the provisions of Rule 37(1) and 37(4) of the Rules of 1981 are mandatory and the non-compliance of the above mentioned Rules vitiates the enquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment given in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni V/s. Y.P. Education Society and others (cited supra) has considered these aspects and the conclusions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court support the case of the respondent no.1. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent no.1 should not be held entitled for the back wages as directed by the Tribunal, considering that he is found to be guilty of misappropriation by the Enquiry Committee, cannot be accepted. Once it is held that the enquiry conducted against the respondent no.1 is vitiated, the conclusions of the enquiry cannot be considered for denying 50% of arrears of salary as ordered by the Tribunal. The learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that once the termination of the respondent no.1 is found to be illegal, the respondent no.1 is entitled for the back wages and has relied on the judgment given in the case of Jasmer Singh V/s. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2015(1) SCALE 360. The respondent no.1 had filed the Writ Petition No.5973/2012 before this Court challenging the denial of 50% of the arrears of salary by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed on 10th January, 2013. The respondent no.1 had filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.118/2013 challenging the order passed in Writ Petition No.5973/2012 and the letters patent appeal is also dismissed on 17th July, 2013. In view of these facts, the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioner/Management to pay 50% of arrears of salary, does not require interference. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.