JUDGMENT : Manish Pitale, J. By this writ petition, petitioner No.1-Management and petitioner No.2-School have challenged order dated 22/03/2017 passed by the School Tribunal, Nagpur, allowing the appeal of respondent No.2, quashing and setting aside the order of termination of service of respondent No.2 dated 10/05/2016 and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. 2. Respondent No.2 was appointed in the post of assistant teacher on 01/08/2008 with petitioner No.2-School. In the year 2015, respondent No.2 raised issue of non-payment of his salary by the school. In response to the representations made by respondent No.2, respondent No.1-Project Officer issued a letter to the petitioner-management seeking a response. On 21/12/2015, the petitioner-management sent a communication to respondent No.1 in respect of non-payment of salary to respondent No.2, stating that respondent No.2 had indulged in certain misconducts and that when he was asked for an explanation for the same, he had refused to respond. On this basis, it was claimed that until such response was given by respondent No.2, his salary would not be paid. Thereafter, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner-management that respondent No.1 should hold a hearing in the matter and pass necessary order. 3. On 22-29/12/2015 respondent No.1 sent a letter to respondent No.2 enumerating the alleged misconducts against him and asking him to submit his reply and to remain present for hearing. Thereafter, on 08/02/2016, respondent No.1 issued a decision in the matter, sending the same to the petitioners, stating therein that in view of the contents of the said decision, the petitioner-management could take appropriate action against respondent No.2. Thereafter, on 10/05/2016, the petitioner-management issued order of termination of service against respondent No.2. A perusal of the contents of the said order show that there is reference made to inability of the petitioner-management to conduct enquiry against respondent No.2 in view of his complaints against the office bearers of the petitioner-management. There is also reference made to the decision dated 08/02/2016 issued by respondent No.1-project officer. Thereafter, there is a reference made to alleged misconducts and then it is stated that even after the decision dated 08/02/2016 given by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 had indulged in mis-behaviour of various kinds, due to which his service was being terminated. 4. There is also reference made to the decision dated 08/02/2016 issued by respondent No.1-project officer. Thereafter, there is a reference made to alleged misconducts and then it is stated that even after the decision dated 08/02/2016 given by respondent No.1, respondent No.2 had indulged in mis-behaviour of various kinds, due to which his service was being terminated. 4. Respondent No.2 initially filed Writ Petition No.6109 of 2016 before this Court challenging the said order of termination of service but, by order dated 18/10/2016, this Court found that respondent No.2 could challenge the same before the School Tribunal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and, therefore, granted liberty to respondent No.2 to file appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed an appeal under section 9 of the said Act before the School Tribunal. The petitioners filed their written submissions in the said appeal and referred to the alleged misconducts committed by respondent No.2 and further contended that after the decision dated 08/02/2016 given by respondent No.1, enquiry as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the Rules of 1981 framed under the said Act, was conducted and that fair opportunities were given to respondent No.2. It was contended that all procedures were followed and thereupon the services of respondent No.2 were terminated on the basis of proven misconducts. 5. The School Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22/03/2017 allowing the appeal in favour of respondent No.2. The Tribunal found that the appointment of respondent No.2 was as per section 5 of the said Act and that there was no material on record to show that any enquiry as contemplated under the aforesaid Act and Rules was conducted in the present case before terminating the service of respondent No.2. On this basis, reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of back wages to respondent No.2 was directed. 6. Mr. Prashant Shende, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.2 had created such a situation in the functioning of the school by levelling allegations of bias that the petitioner-management had found it difficult to conduct an enquiry against him. On this basis, according to the learned counsel, request was made to respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry into the matter. On this basis, according to the learned counsel, request was made to respondent No.1 to conduct enquiry into the matter. According to the petitioners, the decision dated 08/02/2016 was pursuant to an enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 leading to the termination of service of respondent No.2. Since respondent No.1 had found that respondent No.2 had indulged in misconducts as alleged against him, appropriate action of termination of service of respondent No.2 was taken by the petitioners, treating the enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 as an enquiry conducted under the provisions of the said Act and Rules. It was further submitted that even if it was found that there was defective procedure followed by the petitioners, it would be a case of "no enquiry" and that therefore, the petitioners had a right to conduct a fresh enquiry against respondent No.2. It was submitted that respondent No.2 could be reinstated, at the most, for conducting a fresh enquiry and that the question of back wages would depend on the outcome of such fresh enquiry, which the petitioners were entitled to hold. In this regard the learned counsel placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saindranath vs. Pratibha S. Sanstha, reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 753 . 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.M.Shitut, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that the present case was a clear case of victimization of respondent No.2 by the petitioner-management. It was submitted that the salary of respondent No.2 and that of other employees was not being paid by the petitioner-management, due to which respondent No.2 and other employees were constrained to approach respondent No.1 and other authorities for payment of their salary. It was contended that issue was raised by respondent No.2 with respondent No.1 that the petitioners acted in a most malicious manner and made allegations of misconduct, which on the face of it, were absolutely vague and lacked particulars. Such allegations were made only with the intention to get rid of respondent No.2. It was submitted that the decision dated 08/02/2016 given by respondent No.1 was only a communication to the petitioner-management to take appropriate action in the matter. Such allegations were made only with the intention to get rid of respondent No.2. It was submitted that the decision dated 08/02/2016 given by respondent No.1 was only a communication to the petitioner-management to take appropriate action in the matter. If the petitioner-management was serious about pursuing the matter of alleged acts of misconduct committed by respondent No.2, it was expected to follow the mandate of the aforesaid Act and Rules and to hold enquiry in terms thereof. It was submitted that no such enquiry was conducted. In this regard, emphasis was placed on letter dated 29/06/2016 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Tribal Development Department wherein the said Authority had categorically observed that the action of termination of service of respondent No.2 without holding enquiry did not appear to be appropriate and that the petitioner-management should hold an enquiry against respondent No.2. It was also pointed out that despite failing to hold any such enquiry, in the written submissions filed before the Tribunal, a bold stand was taken on behalf of the petitioner-management that an enquiry as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the Rules was indeed undertaken and that fair opportunity had been granted to respondent No.2 to place his defence. It was submitted that no material was placed on record before the Tribunal to support such a contention and the said stand was in clear contradiction to the contents of the order of termination of service dated 10/05/2016. 8. It was further submitted that if the petitioners did have any material to support the allegations of misconduct made against respondent No.2, the petitioner-management could have placed such material before the Tribunal since this Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Saindranath vs. Pratibha S. Sanstha (supra) has held that in exceptional circumstances such an opportunity could be granted to the Management before the Tribunal. According to the learned counsel, having initially taken a stand that it had not conducted an enquiry and order of termination of service was based on decision dated 08/02/2016 issued by respondent No.1 and then having stated in its written submission before the Tribunal that an enquiry was indeed conducted, it could not lie in the mouth of the petitioner-management to now claim that even if it was a case of no enquiry, the petitioner-management deserved to be granted an opportunity to hold a fresh enquiry and to hold the payment of back wages to respondent No.2 contingent upon the result of such a fresh enquiry. It was emphasized that the present case was a clear case of victimization of respondent No.2 at the hands of the petitioner-management. 9. Mr. Tembhare, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Project Officer, has submitted that a perusal of the decision dated 08/02/2016 only shows that the petitioner-management was asked to take appropriate action in the matter. According to the learned A.G.P., the purport of the said document was not that an enquiry had been conducted by respondent No.1, which the petitioner-management could rely upon to issue order of termination of service against respondent No.2. It was pointed out that the petitioner-management had failed to show any material on record that it had indeed conducted the enquiry as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the said Rules. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules show that when a management contemplates action to be taken against any of its employees, it is required to mandatorily follow rules of natural justice, which are manifested in the aforesaid Rues, particularly, rules 36 and 37 thereof. The procedure contemplated under rules 36 and 37 is that the petitioner-management is expected to pass a resolution first, constitute a proper enquiry committee and that the chief executive officer authorized by the management is required to communicate to the employee, the allegations against him and to seek an explanation within seven days. Thereafter, if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry committee is to be constituted in terms of the said Rules and then the procedure of conducting an enquiry is to be undertaken. The three member enquiry committee consists of one nominee each of the management and the employee and a State Awardee Teacher. Thereafter, if the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, an enquiry committee is to be constituted in terms of the said Rules and then the procedure of conducting an enquiry is to be undertaken. The three member enquiry committee consists of one nominee each of the management and the employee and a State Awardee Teacher. The said detailed procedure is prescribed in the aforesaid Rules to ensure that action proposed to be undertaken against an employee is taken after he/she is granted a proper opportunity to explain his/her conduct and that the management does not terminate service of permanent employee on its own whims and fancies. 11. In the present case the material on record shows that the initiation of action against respondent No.2 started with, his making demand about non-payment of salary by the petitioner-management. Upon respondent No.2 approaching the authorities and respondent No.1 seeking a response from the petitioner-management, a communication dated 21/12/2016 was issued by the petitioner-management, giving list of alleged misconducts committed by respondent No.2 and stating that his salary would not be paid since he had failed to give explanation in response to the said alleged misconducts committed by him. It was also indicated that respondent No.1 could take hearing in the matter and pass appropriate orders. Respondent No.1 issued the decision dated 08/02/2016 after calling upon the petitioner-management and respondent No.2 in respect of the alleged misconducts and it was stated in the said decision that the petitioner-management could take appropriate action in the matter. The provisions of the aforesaid Act and Rules were required to be followed by the petitioner-management, if it contemplated taking any action against respondent No.2 on the list of acts of misconduct specified in its communications with respondent No.1, by following the mandate of the said Act and Rules. But, the petitioner-management straight away issued the order of termination of service dated 10/05/2016 against respondent No.2. In this order, the petitioner-management referred to the aforesaid acts of misconduct, the decision dated 08/02/2016 issued by respondent No.1 and further claimed that respondent No.2 had indulged in misconducts despite the said decision dated 08/02/2016. There is a reference made in the said order of termination of service that even after the decision dated 08/02/2016 was issued by respondent No.1, there had been no change in the behaviour of respondent No.2 and that he had continued to commit misconduct. There is a reference made in the said order of termination of service that even after the decision dated 08/02/2016 was issued by respondent No.1, there had been no change in the behaviour of respondent No.2 and that he had continued to commit misconduct. On this basis, the service of respondent No.2 was terminated. 12. Before the School Tribunal, the petitioner-management took a stand, which was completely at variance with what was stated in the order of termination dated 10/05/2016. In the reply filed before the School Tribunal, the petitioner-management claimed that it had constituted an enquiry committee as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the aforesaid Rules for holding enquiry against respondent No.2. There is detailed reference made to alleged charge-sheet along with statement of allegations issued to respondent No.2 and also the number of opportunities allegedly given to respondent No.2 in order to conduct a fair enquiry. It was also stated that all the requirements of rules 36 and 37 of the said Rules, as also rules 9 and 10 thereof were scrupulously followed by the petitioner-management by giving opportunity to respondent No.2 to lead evidence and also an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. On this basis, it was contended that the order of termination of service was justified. It is relevant that no material was placed on record by the petitioner-management in support of its claim that enquiry committee as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the said Rules was constituted and a proper enquiry was conducted before the order of termination of service was issued against respondent No.2. 13. In the impugned order the Tribunal took note of the aforesaid stand taken by the petitioner-management and it was found that there was no material to support the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-management. After taking into consideration the entire material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion in para-21, which reads as follows :- "21.................... However, the respondent No.1 instead of holding any enquiry and instead of affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant capriciously issued the termination order of the appellant. The act of the respondent No.1 amounts to sheer violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules 36, 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 and it is also against the provisions of Ashram School Code. Therefore, with utmost respect, the ratio of Authority relied by respondents is of no avail. The act of the respondent No.1 amounts to sheer violation of the mandatory provisions of Rules 36, 37 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 and it is also against the provisions of Ashram School Code. Therefore, with utmost respect, the ratio of Authority relied by respondents is of no avail. The sum and substance which emerges from the available documentary evidence speaks volume that there is no cogent evidence on record to bring home the appellant guilty for the 13 points raised by the respondent No.1 supra. Therefore, looking from any angle, the impugned termination order cannot stand to the scrutiny of Law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. With this observation, I have no hesitation to answer my finding to Issue No.4. in affirmative." 14. The said findings rendered by the Tribunal clearly show that the petitioner-management could not produce any material even before the Tribunal to support the 13 acts of misconduct alleged by it against respondent No.2. A perusal of the allegations quoted in para-18 of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal show that they are of a general nature and specific dates and events regarding such acts of misconducts have not been stated. This assumes significance in the backdrop, that admittedly, respondent No.2 had been raising his grievance regarding non-payment of salary by the petitioner-management before the concerned authorities including respondent No.1 and that this had resulted in bad blood between the petitioner-management and respondent No.2. The acts of misconduct alleged against respondent No.2 are not only devoid of any details and specifications but they appear to have been made in a most cavalier manner. The petitioner-management has not been able to place on record any material to support the allegations. Initially the petitioner-management sought to take shelter of the decision dated 08/02/2016 issued by respondent No.1-Project Officer and later before the Tribunal it claimed to have actually conducted a proper enquiry as contemplated under rules 36 and 37 of the aforesaid Rules. In respect of this controversy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management submitted that the reference to an enquiry made in the reply before the School Tribunal was to the enquiry conducted against respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 and the decision dated 08/02/2016. The material on record clearly falsifies the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner-management respondent No.2. In respect of this controversy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management submitted that the reference to an enquiry made in the reply before the School Tribunal was to the enquiry conducted against respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 and the decision dated 08/02/2016. The material on record clearly falsifies the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner-management respondent No.2. Therefore, it is evident that there was no material with the petitioner-management to support its hollow claim before the Tribunal and that an enquiry conducted under rules 36 and 37 of the aforesaid Rules had been indeed conducted by it. 15. In this situation, the petitioner-management could have placed at least some material before the Tribunal to support the aforesaid allegations of misconduct against respondent No.2, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saindranath vs. Pratibha S. Sanstha (supra). In paras 65 and 66 of the said judgment, it has been laid down that in exceptional and compelling circumstances, the management could be permitted to produce material before the Tribunal to justify its action of termination of service of an employee on the basis of misconducts of grave nature. A proper reading of the aforesaid position of law laid down in the said judgment of this Court would show that such a course could be adopted if the charges were of extremely grave nature and the management could demonstrate that it was not in a position to hold an enquiry at all because of a situation brought about by the employee himself. In the present case, the petitioner-management failed to demonstrate as to what was the grave situation created by respondent No.2 due to which, it could not hold an enquiry. The stand of the petitioner-management that respondent No.2 had sent representations to respondent No.1 and other authorities creating a situation wherein it was impossible to conduct an enquiry, cannot be accepted because record shows that respondent No.2 had approached the authorities demanding payment of his salary. Further the petitioner-management failed to demonstrate as to what were the grave and serious nature of charges against respondent No.2 that would justify its producing any material before the Tribunal to support the charges, upon its failure to conduct an enquiry. Further the petitioner-management failed to demonstrate as to what were the grave and serious nature of charges against respondent No.2 that would justify its producing any material before the Tribunal to support the charges, upon its failure to conduct an enquiry. A perusal of the alleged acts of misconduct against respondent No.2, as noted above, shows that they were of very general nature and they lacked particulars. 16. Even otherwise, the petitioner-management failed to make any effort before the Tribunal to place any material to support its allegation of misconduct against respondent No.2, if the Tribunal found that it was a case of no enquiry or defective enquiry. 17. In this situation, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that following the dictum in the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Saindranath vs. Pratibha S. Sanstha (supra), since the present case of no enquiry, the petitioners could be granted liberty to hold a fresh enquiry and the entitlement of back wages of respondent No.2 could be made dependent on the final outcome of such a fresh enquiry. In the present case, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of the said position of law, because in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that the petitioner-management has indulged in victimization of respondent No.2. The petitioner-management cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and then to turn around and say that if the present case could be termed to be a case of 'no enquiry', liberty could be granted for fresh enquiry. It is also found that the allegations of misconduct made against respondent No.2 are absolutely of a general nature with no material to support the same. If it is found by the Court that the actions of the management are absolutely malicious and with a view to victimize the employee, such a management cannot be permitted to hold a fresh enquiry on the basis of the said position of law. If it is found by the Court that the actions of the management are absolutely malicious and with a view to victimize the employee, such a management cannot be permitted to hold a fresh enquiry on the basis of the said position of law. The actions of the management first in trying to justify the order of termination of service on the basis of decision dated 08/02/2016 of respondent No.1-Project Officer and then claiming before the Tribunal without any material to support that an enquiry was indeed conducted as per rules 36 and 37 of the said Rules, shows that the conduct of the petitioner-management is such that it does not call for a direction for conducting fresh enquiry against respondent No.2. 18. In the light of the above, the present writ petition is found to be without any merit and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 19. It is pointed out that respondent No.2 stood reinstated during the pendency of this writ petition on 30/10/2018. It goes without saying that respondent No.2 shall be paid regular salary pursuant to such reinstatement and that the petitioner-management shall pay back wages to respondent No.2 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.