SHRI MITHAILAL DALSINGHAR SINGH Vs. S.V. JOAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the President and the Secretary respectively of Arya Samaj, Matunga, Bombay 19. The said Arya Samaj inter alia conducts a secondary school known as 'Shri Dayanand Balak Vidyalaya' at Matunga. Respondent No. 2 was the Principal of the said school and was found to be guilty of certain charges by an Inquiry Committee, Respondent No. 2 appealed under Rule 77 of the Secondary Schools Code of the Government of Maharashtra to respondent No. 1 the Deputy Director of Education, Greater Bombay, who by his order dated March 28, 1972 ordered respondent No. 2 to be reinstated. The petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing - the said order. The facts leading to this petition are briefly as follows:

(2.) ON April 24, 1971 the Management of the School (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Management') issued to respondent No. 2 a show cause notice containing three charges against him viz. (a) that he had promoted a student by name Jaiprakash Singh from Standard X to Standard XI by manipulation of mark sheets of the examination held in April 1970 (b) that he had issued two false certificates (i) School Leaving Certificate issued to the said Jaiprakash Singh and (ii) Certificate regarding residence to Ramnihore Jagdish Narayan Shukla, and (c) that he had drawn house rent allowance illegally and improperly. Respondent No. 2 submitted an explanation dated April 29, 1971. Thereafter an Inquiry Committee consisting of three persons was constituted, two nominated by the Management and the third by respondent No. 2. The inquiry was under Rule 77 of the Secondary Schools Code. On July 2, 1971 the Inquiry Committee charge -sheeted respondent No. 2. On July 14, 1971 respondent No. 2 submitted his explanation to the charge -sheet. After the inquiry was completed respondent No. 2 was found guilty of all the charges and the Inquiry Committee held on January 29, 1972 that respondent No. 2 be dismissed from service.

(3.) THE petitioners have stated in paras. 11 and 12 of the petition that they attended the office of respondent No. 1 or March 20, 1972 at 4.00 p.m. They state that respondent No. 2 was not then). Respondent No. 1 inquired of the petitioners whether they desired to be heard in the appeal. Petitioner No. 2 answered in the affirmative. On this respondent No. 1 gave to the petitioners a questionnaire containing about twenty questions to be answered in writing. Petitioner No. 2 objected to this procedure but respondent No. 1 informed him that this was the usual procedure adopted by him. Thereafter petitioner No. 2 was made to sit in a separate cabin for answering the questions. By 5.00 p.m. he had answered half the questions when respondent No. 1 came to the cabin and informed petitioner No. 2 that the office time was over and that petitioner No. 2 should come the next day for answering the remaining questions. The petitioners state that they vent again on March 22, 1972. On this occasion petitioner No. 2 completed the replies and at the end of the replies stated 'In the end the Management reserves its right to make its submission at the time of the hearing of the appeal'. Respondent No. 1 inquired about the remarks of the Management or the appeal. Petitioner No. 2 stated that he would positively submit the remarks by March 29, 1972. The petitioners state that respondent No. 1 stated to petitioner No. 2 that he would fix up the date of hearing after he had received the Management's remarks on or about March 29, 1972. The petitioners thereafter submitted the remarks of the Management on the appeal on March 28, 1972. The petitioners state that on March 29, 1972 they were surprised to receive the letter of respondent No. 1 dated March 28, 1972 forwarding the decision of respondent No. 1 asking the Management to reinstate respondent No. 2. The letter and the impugned order are exh. J to the petition.