SUDERSHAN SINGH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LUDHIANA, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.W. Nos. 1344 and 1356 of 1973, Sudershan Singh V/s. Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana and others, as the facts are indentical. The petitioner is the Manager of the National High School, Manupur, district Ludhiana. Bhan Singh respondent in C.W., 1344 of 1973 and Raghbir Singh respondent in C.W. 1356 of 1973, were employed as teachers in that school, it is alleged by the petitioner that numerous complains were received against these respondents and show-cause notices were served on them. A copy of the show-cause notice has been annexed as annexure 'A' to each writ petition. By resolution dated June 5, 1971, the Gram Panchayat dismissed these respondents from service on the basis of the enquiry held by it against them. The order of dismissal was communicated to the said respondents on June 7, 1971. It is alleged in the petitions that a copy of the resolution was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for confirmation. This fact has been denied by the Deputy Commissioner in his return. The dismissed teachers filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner which were accepted on September 28, 1971. Against those orders, the petitioner filed appeals before the Commissioner which were dismissed in default on November 14, 1972. Restoration applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed on December 4, 1972, by the Commissioner. The present petitions have been directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and the Commissioner, referred to above.

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal of respondent 3 in each case on the ground that the order of dismissal could not take effect unless it had been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 3(2) of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Admittedly, the order was not confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the resolution dismissing Bhan Singh and Raghbir Singh was sent to the Deputy Commissioner with a view to obtain his confirmation. As I have said above, that assertion has been denied by the Deputy Commissioner. Under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, the dismissed employees had the right to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner within thirty days to the receipt of the order of dismissal. They filed their appeals on June 29, 1971, that is, twenty-two days after the receipt of the order of dismissal. In these circumstances, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while disposing of the appeals of the said respondents, the Deputy Commissioner should have gone into the matter whether the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act had been complied with and if he was satisfied, he could have confirmed the order of dismissal. This submission is misconceived. It was for the Management of the school to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for confirmation of its order of dismissal and that matter could not be gone into by the Deputy Commissioner for confirmation of its order of dismissal and that matter could not be gone into by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal by the dismissed employees. It would have been another matter if the management had applied for confirmation and the dismissed teachers had filed their appeals. In that case, both the applications and the appeals could be heard together but in the absence of any application for confirmation under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner could not accord confirmation in an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act by the dismissed teachers. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner was legally correct. The Deputy Commissioner, however, left it to the petitioner to hold another enquiry an apply for his confirmation. Instead the Commissioner and thereafter writ petition in his Court and has thus wasted time.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order of the commissioner dismissing the appeals in default and refusing them should be quashed and he should be directed to rehear the appeal. There is no section in the Act empowering the commissioner to restore an appeal dismissed in default and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner refusing to restore the appeals cannot be quashed. However, this matter is academic in view of my finding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, was legally correct. As desired by the Deputy Commissioner it will be open to the petitioner to hold another enquiry and apply to the Deputy Commissioner for confirmation under Section 3(2) of the Act. The writ petitions are without any merit and are dismissed with costs payable only to respondent 3 in each case. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. Other respondents shall bear their own costs as there is no representation on their behalf.