ORDER: GAURI GODSE, J. 1. This petition is filed by the original appellant before the school tribunal to challenge the dismissal of his appeal. The appeal was filed to challenge the order terminating the petitioner based on the inquiry committee’s report and findings regarding allegations of misconduct and immoral activities against students. The school tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no infirmity or illegality in the constitution of the inquiry committee or in the procedure followed for conducting the inquiry. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had repeatedly requested copies of the complaint referred to in the show cause notice. However, he was never provided with copies, and thus he was unable to respond to the allegations on the facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced various communications between the petitioner and the management to support her submissions that the petitioner was entitled to receive copies of the complaint, on the basis of which the show cause notice was issued and an inquiry was conducted. It was always within management's discretion to mask the complainant's name to maintain confidentiality. In one of the response letters dated 7 th March 2014, the petitioner denied the allegations and contended that they were baseless and false. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the findings recorded in the inquiry committee's report are not in accordance with the law and as set out in the chargesheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 33 of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (‘MEPS Act’) were not followed before issuing a show cause notice and conducting an inquiry. Hence, non-compliance with the rules would vitiate the inquiry and, thus, render the termination order unsustainable in law. To support her submissions regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to the copies of the complaint, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: 1. Shri Dnyaneshwar Samaj Prabodhan Sanstha Vs. The Presiding Officer School Tribunal and Ors. 2007(5) ALL MR 893 2. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh 2025 0 Supreme (SC)700 3. Birigadier L.I. Singh YSM Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2019 0 Supreme(SC)1383 4. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak mandal and Anr Vs. Laxman Shyamrao Parate and Anr. The Presiding Officer School Tribunal and Ors. 2007(5) ALL MR 893 2. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh 2025 0 Supreme (SC)700 3. Birigadier L.I. Singh YSM Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2019 0 Supreme(SC)1383 4. Gramin Shikshan Prasarak mandal and Anr Vs. Laxman Shyamrao Parate and Anr. 2015 0 Supreme (Bom) 492 5. Yavatmal Islamia Anglo Urdu Education Soceity and Anr Vs. Mujib Ahmed Abbas Ali and Anr. 2010 1 AIIMR 810 6. Mahalaxmi Shikshan Sanstha Vs. State of Maharashtra 1998 2 AIIMR 35 7. Awdhesh Narayan K. Singh Vs. Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust 2004 1 AIIMR 346 8. Digambar Ganpat Shindhikumate Vs. Arya Hindi Vidya Mandir Laws(Bom)-1982-4-10 9. Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Ors. 2013 3 AIR(Bom)® 1437 10. Ayappa Bharamappa Kadiwal Vs. President, Local Governing Council, Arts and Commerce College, Aurangabad and Ors , 2001 Supp 1 BomCR 293 11. Bhagwanrao Vishwanath Vyawhare and Anr Vs. Sunita Gopinath Palve and Anr , 2008 1 AIIMR 68 12. Rangdas Swami Shikshan Vikas Mandai and Ors Vs. Mutyal Vilas Rambhau and Ors , 2011(5) ALL MR 115 13. Ashok Vs. The Secretary Gram Vikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal , 2015 4 AIIMR 590 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a well- established legal principle that when the show cause notice is issued, making allegations of misconduct, for submitting an effective explanation, the person against whom the show cause notice is issued would be entitled to receive all the documents relevant to respond to the show cause notice. She therefore submits that, in the event of non-compliance with the rules and failure to supply copies of the complaint, the entire enquiry would stand vitiated and the termination would be liable to be set aside. She therefore submits that the impugned order would warrant interference by this court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent management supports the impugned order. He points out that the petitioner was offered an opportunity to inspect the complaint. However, he never attempted to take an inspection. Even otherwise, in the show cause notice, all the particulars of the allegations were reproduced. However, except for one line of denial, the petitioner did not respond to the allegations. At the time of inquiry, a copy of the complaint was produced. However, he never attempted to take an inspection. Even otherwise, in the show cause notice, all the particulars of the allegations were reproduced. However, except for one line of denial, the petitioner did not respond to the allegations. At the time of inquiry, a copy of the complaint was produced. At the first meeting following the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, a letter was delivered to the petitioner. He submits that all necessary procedures prescribed by law have been followed, and that the petitioner has never made any grievance about the procedure before the tribunal. He submits that none of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would apply in the present case, as all the necessary procedures were followed. The petitioner did not request any document relevant to the explanation of the show-cause notice. He therefore submits that the impugned order would not warrant any interference. 6. I have carefully perused the correspondence between the parties and all documents forming part of the order of termination and the proceedings of the inquiry. The management has issued the show-cause notice in detail, redacting the complainant’s name to maintain confidentiality. The cognisance taken by the management for the appointment of the internal committee is also referred to in the show cause notice. In the reply filed by the petitioner, except for requesting copies and the names of the complainant, no explanation is offered by the petitioner in response to the allegations. In one of the letters, the petitioner vaguely denied the allegations in the show cause notice. 7. The appeal memo is bereft of any objection to the constitution of the committee or to the procedure followed by the management. Hence, the contention raised in the petition regarding non-compliance with the relevant rules cannot be raised for the first time in a petition filed to invoke the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the reasons recorded in the impugned order shows that the tribunal has examined the proceedings regarding the show- cause notice and the inquiry in detail. The tribunal has also discussed the substantial evidence produced before the inquiry committee and the relevant procedures followed at the time of the inquiry. 8. The tribunal has observed that there is no infirmity in the constitution of the inquiry, and the committee was constituted under Rule 36 of the said Rules, 1981. The tribunal has also discussed the substantial evidence produced before the inquiry committee and the relevant procedures followed at the time of the inquiry. 8. The tribunal has observed that there is no infirmity in the constitution of the inquiry, and the committee was constituted under Rule 36 of the said Rules, 1981. The cross-examination conducted by the nominee of the petitioner and the relevant material before the inquiry committee to hold the appellant guilty of misconduct, moral turpitude, and negligence in performing duties is also considered by the tribunal. A perusal of the letters exchanged between the petitioner and the management reveals that the petitioner repeatedly requested copies of the complaint and the names of the complainants. Except for the copies of the complainant, the petitioner has not requested any documents required to respond to the show- cause notice. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the principle of natural justice has been followed by the management. None of the procedures followed in conducting the inquiry or in terminating the employment are questioned before the Tribunal. This court cannot delve into the merits of the inquiry. Even otherwise, in the appeal before the tribunal, the petitioner has not raised any objection to the constitution of the committee or to non- compliance with any relevant rules not followed during the inquiry. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments in support of her submissions; however, none of the judgments are of any assistance to the petitioner’s case. She has unnecessarily burdened this court by producing thirteen judgments to argue the well-established legal principles. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the non-supply of a copy of the complaint resulted in the deprivation of the opportunity to give an effective explanation and, consequently, constitutes a violation of the said Rules and the principles of natural justice. 11. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the settled principles are regarding the supply of documents pertaining to the controversy over whether the failure, omission, or neglect of the disciplinary authority to furnish the enquiry report or documents relied upon in the process of inquiry would vitiate the enquiry, as they would be necessary to provide an effective explanation by the employee to meet the allegations. There can be no dispute on the well- established legal principle that the relevant documents must be supplied to the employee to enable him to respond effectively to the allegations. However, in the present case, except for insisting on copies of the complaint and the complainant's name, the petitioner has not requested any documents necessary to respond effectively to the allegations in the complaint. The copy of the show cause notice incorporates all allegations. 12. Even otherwise, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the management at the time of the first hearing of the inquiry, a copy of the complaint was produced, and the petitioner was allowed to inspect it. Considering the facts of the present case and the inquiry initiated and conducted as per the rules, none of the legal principles relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be of any assistance in the present case. There is no illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in the impugned order, warranting any interference by this court in the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Consti- tution of India is well-established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 239. The Apex court held that the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact, or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. It is further held that the power is discretionary and that jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly on equitable principles, in an appropriate case. 14. In the present case, there is no ground to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction. 15. The writ petition is therefore rejected.