JAGDISHCHANDRAN TRIVEDI Vs. TRUSTEE PRINCIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition purporting to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has. in reality, challenged the judgment and order dated 7.2.2006 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Applications No. 111 of 2002 and 146 of 2002 whereby dismissal from service of the petitioner is upheld. The main prayer in the petition is to issue appropriate writ or direction quashing the aforesaid order as also to set aside the order dated 4.6.2002 by which the petitioner was dismissed with effect from 10.6.2002 by way of punishment. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that, since the order of the Education Tribunal was called into question by the petitioner on a solitary ground after fulfledged hearing by the Tribunal and adjudication of the matter, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 could more appropriately be invoked and, therefore, he requested to consider the petition also under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The simple facts, as far as they are relevant, are that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher under respondents No.1 and 2 and attracted the charges of acts of misconduct on as many as 11 counts which included taking illegal benefit of leave travel concession, giving false undertaking, producing tampered ration card and addressing the male principal as a lady. Upon issuance of chargesheet and holding of an enquiry, he attended 8 sittings out of 17 meetings and disputed the status of the school as a minority institution. The enquiry officer returned the finding, in effect, that all the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved and, as a result thereof, the petitioner came to be dismissed.

(3.) Upon an application being made to the Tribunal, it was found and recorded in the impugned judgment that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the enquiry officer and he had remained absent and chosen not to cross-examine the witnesses of management on his own volition. In short, the enquiry was found to have been conducted by observing principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the punishment on any ground after perusal of the record and consideration of the contentions of the petitioner.