SEVA SADAN EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. PYARELAL RAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Ulhasnagar on 7th March 1986 in Regular Civil Suit No.188 of 1977 and duly confirmed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment and order dated 31st March 1988 by dismissing Civil Appeal No.181 of 1986.

(2.) The substantial questions of law framed in this Second Appeal while admitting it are as under:

(3.) Few admitted facts are required to be stated before proceeding to consider the substantial questions of law as framed hereinabove. The defendant -appellant is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is running a school under the name and style "New Era High School" at Ulhasnagar and the said school was recognised by the Government of Maharashtra. It was an aided school and the plaintiff was employed by the school as a Peon with effect from 1/2/1969. He was a confirmed employee. Around 8th December 1975 the Principal of the School got a report that the plaintiff was keeping under lock and key some lady in the room allotted to him in the school premises and, therefore, some investigation was done and on 17th December 1975 the Principal suspended him pending further enquiry (Exh. 53). It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff had claimed that he was married in April 1975 and, therefore, he had asked for a family quarter. Out of the five quarters one quarter was available and on the plaintiff furnishing the details like the name of his wife etc., the same was allotted to him. He had furnished his wife's name as Kamala. The preliminary investigations made by the Principal based on the statements of the Peons who were asked to go and visit the quarter of the plaintiff indicated that there was a lady in the quarter allotted to the plaintiff and she was not his wife and on the contrary she was a girl who was purchased by the plaintiff from one Nanelal Chowkidar for a sum of Rs. 200/-to 500/-. In this process the Principal recorded statements of Fulchand, Radheshyam and Ratansingh (Exhibits 50 to 52). While issuing the suspension order the plaintiff was asked to come for the enquiry in the school on 21/12/1975. The plaintiff refused to accept the said suspension order and did not turn up for the enquiry. The enquiry was adjourned from time to time and on completion of the said enquiry, report was sent to the Education Officer who by his letter dated 5/9/1976 (Exhibit 54) informed that the proposal sent by the Management was referred to the higher authorities.