GYANMANDIR MAHAVIDHYALAYA SAMITY Vs. UDAILAL JAROLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent 1 herein was the Principal of an institution run by the appellant herein. He is said to have committed certain acts of misconduct, which having come to the notice of the appellant, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him wherein he was found guilty. Pursuant thereto and in furtherance thereof, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved there against, an appeal was preferred by the said respondent before the State Government which remained pending for a considerable period of time. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. Although the said appeal was disposed of by the State Government on or about 21.11.1984, the same was not brought to the notice of the High Court and by reason of an order dated 23.11.1984 the State Government was directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent. On a mistaken belief that a fresh order was required to be passed by it, the appeal of the respondent was taken up for hearing again by the State Government which was partly allowed, in terms whereof the respondent was not granted the arrears of salary while the order of dismissal was set aside. Both the parties herein preferred respective writ petitions being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith. A Single Judge of the High Court while allowing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, dismissed the one preferred by the respondent. A special leave petition was filed by the respondent herein against the said order, whereupon this Court disposed of the matter ex parte by an order dated 25.1.1988, observing:

(2.) It is not in dispute that in fact no appeal was pending before the State Government at the relevant point of time; but purported to be on the strength of the aforesaid order of this Court the respondent filed a fresh appeal before the Chief Minister whereupon a direction was made that the appeal be heard by the appropriate authority. The said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge, inter alia, holding that this Court in its order dated 25.1.1988 did not give any fresh opportunity to the respondent to file a separate appeal. The respondent preferred a letters patent appeal against the said judgment. The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned Judgement directed the matter to be heard afresh upon remission thereof, stating:

(3.) Consequent upon the said findings, the appeal was allowed in part by directing: