BADSHAH BAPUSAHEB SHAIKH Vs. BARVE EDUCATION SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th September 1984, passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the order dated of 8th April 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Bombay.

(2.) THE petitioner being a qualified teacher, was appointed in 1968 as an Assistant Teacher in New English School, Vasai, also run by the 1st Respondent Society. In 1978, he was promoted as a Supervisor. In 1979, he was reverted as an Assistant Teacher and again in November 1981 on representation made by the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor. In June 1983, he was transferred from New English School to Nirmal Vidyalaye, Nirmal, Thane i.e. the 2nd Respondent. According to the petitioner, from 16th June 1983 to 30th June 1963, the petitioner was on sick leave. However, according to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, he remained absent all throughout without his leave being sanctioned and resumed only on 21st January 1984. In July 1983, because of the petitioner remaining absent without permission, an order stopping his increment was passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. On 4th October 1983, he was served with a chargesheet alleging several acts of misconduct against him. The petitioner replied to the charges and an Enquiry Committee was constituted in November 1983. The petitioner nominated his nominee, however, another chargesheet was served on him on 19th December 1983, alleging further acts of misconduct. Several meetings of the Enquiry Committee were held and the petitioner gave his explanation and denied the charges. On 30th August 1984 the Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the 1st Respondent recommending dismissal. An order of reversion was passed on 11th September 1984. In 1984, the petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasai, challenging the said order of dismissal. However, he withdrew the same immediately thereafter and preferred an appeal before the School Tribunal on 16th September 1987. Written Statement was filed by the Respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. By an order dated 8th April 1988, delivered by the School Tribunal, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and hence the present petition, thus challenging not only the order passed by the School Tribunal on 8th April 1988, but also challenging the order of dismissal passed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) AS far as the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned, qua departmental enquiry, the law is well settled and aptly summarised by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. S. Shree Rama Rao reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1723 as follows: