K R CHAUHAN Vs. KANDLA PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, Shri K.R. Chauhan, was appointed as Assistant Teacher on probation for a period of two years with effect from 17.11.1969, in a private school, o/e/ Bharatiya Vidya Mandir, New Kandla, run by Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham. While on probation, he was served with show cause notice on 23.4.1971, regarding serious misconduct of misbehaving with girl students of the school. The Disciplinary Authority found the charges of misbehaviour with the girl students proved, therefore, imposed penalty of withholding of increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect, by order dated 28.5.1975. Aggrieved of that order, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority, i.e. The Chairman, Kandla Port Trust. Considering the seriousness of the charges found to be proved against the teacher, the Chairman issued notice on 22.12.1975 against the teacher calling upon him to show cause as to why penalty of stoppage of three increments without future effect should not enhanced to dismissal from service. After considering the reply, he was dismissed from service. He challenged the same before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal ("Tribunal"). The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 11.4.1997, set aside the order of removal and ordered to reinstate the teacher in service with all benefits of service, including back wages. That order was challenged by the trust and the school management by way of Special Civil Application No.604 of 1997 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 20.6.1977. Letters Patent Appeal No.130 of 1977 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was also disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.11.1985 and the order of the learned Single Judge as well as Tribunal were quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh decision on merits by giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence in the case. Before the Tribunal, application was submitted, but the same was rejected by the Tribunal on 11.8.1988, therefore, the trust and the school management approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.6460 of 1988. But the same was also rejected by the High Court, against which S.L.P. was preferred before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was disposed of by following observations:-

(2.) Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 15.4.1996 held that the inquiry was illegal. That order of the Tribunal was once again challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.4483 of 1996, but the same was rejected on 1.7.1996. However, while rejecting the petition, this Court observed that the petitioner may satisfy the Tribunal that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the preliminary issues require consideration and if such a request is made, then the Tribunal may consider the same. However, the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 23.9.1996, allowed the appeal of the teacher and set aside the order of removal, which was challenged by the trust and the school management before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.8255 of 1996. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by his judgment and order dated 18.6.1998, allowed the petition filed by the trust and the school management and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.1996 passed by the Tribunal. However, while setting aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal on 23.9.1996, the learned Single Judge made it clear that the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by the petitioner-trust and school managment and paid to the teacher shall not be recovered from him.

(3.) The aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17/18-6-1998 in Special Civil Application No.8255 of 1996, setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.9.1996, passed by the Tribunal was sought to be challenged by the applicant-teacher by way of the above Letters Patent Appeal No.1569 of 1998, which is barred by the period of limitation by 112 days. Therefore, the present appliation is filed for condoning the gross delay of 112 days.