NUTAN BHARTI GRAM VIDYAPITH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN this matter was being heard, in order to resolve the dispute amicably, a suggestion was put to learned Advocate for the petitioner to put an end to the matter by paying 50% of backwages from the date of order of dismissal till the date of superannuation. This suggestion was not accepted. Learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that the respondent No. 2 may join without backwages, which was not accepted by respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 stated that the Court may decide about the backwages at any percentage which will be acceptable to him. Therefore the matter was proceeded on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner herein challenged the validity of order dated 2nd March 2000 whereby the respondent No. 1 has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 and ordered reinstatement of respondent No. 2 in petitioner's institution.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner averred that there was no provision of appeal at the time when the respondent No. 2 filed appeal before respondent No. 1; that the respondent No. 1 did not consider the charges of second chargesheet which were proved; that once the charges are proved, it was not open to respondent No. 1 to quash and set aside the impugned order of dismissal; that the allegations leveled against the respondent No. 2 were of serious nature; that the presence of the respondent No. 2 was not in the interest of the institution; that the respondent No. 1 was lacking inherent jurisdiction to pass the impugned order; that the so called reasons given by respondent No. 1 in the impugned order are not germane; that the respondent No. 2 is not entitled to backwages and that there is no order of continuity of service and that even if continuity is given, no increments nor promotion can be granted.