SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE Vs. JHARKHAND ACADEMIC COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 4.12.2010, passed by the learned Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi in Case No. 28/2010 (JET), whereby the petition of the respondent No.3 has been allowed and the order of dismissal from service dated 12.6.2010 passed by the appellants has been quashed and thereby the respondent No.3 was ordered to be restored in the job w.e.f. the date he was removed from the service.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant-School was not a recognized School under the Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act, 2004. It is submitted that the appellant-School was granted permission to commence the School. It is further submitted that the appellants constituted a Managing Committee to run the administration of the School and the respondent No.3 was appointed as Principal of the School from18.2.1987. It is submitted that initially his work and conduct was found to be proper but he started behaving insolently and in defiance of valid and reasonable instruction of his superiors including the Managing Committee. He was warned and asked to mend his work and conduct but he did not bring desired improvement which resulted in deterioration in the standard of teaching and discipline in the School. It is submitted that respondent No.3 indulged himself in giving misleading information to the members of the Managing Committee, used to get the signature of the Secretary on the documents in the garb of their submission before the Jharkhand Academic Council for obtaining permanent letter of permission etc. He started allowing private candidates to appear in the Secondary Education Examination without information or sanction of the Managing Committee. He also started collecting money from the private candidates and pocketing the same for his personal gains. It is further submitted that the amount which were supposed to be legitimately accounted for in the School funds were not at all accounted for by him though he himself was responsible for proper financial management and accounting of the School. It is further submitted that certain grave and serious irregularities including disrespect to the National Flag on 26.1.2008 and use of abusive languageagainst the Secretary compelled the Management to issue a charge sheet dated 29.1.2008. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 refused to grant acknowledgement of the charge sheet-cum-suspension order. It is further submitted that respondent No.3, while admitting his guilt, tendered apology and assured the Management that he will not repeat such conduct in future and accordingly, he submitted his letter dated 21.3.2008, addressed to the appellant No.2, which speaks volume of the extent of being a disciplined and law abiding Principal as he so claims in the complaint petition. It is further submitted that the explanation given by respondent No.3 was placed before the School Managing Committee as well as the Executive Committee of the proprietor of the School and after considering his explanation objectively and showing their magnanimity, let off the respondent No.3 with a strong and final warning to mend himself, failing which he was to make himself liable for action including suspension/ dismissal from the service. It is further submitted that in spite of issuance of above order, respondent No.3 did not abide by the assurance given by him earlier and continued to indulge himself in the activities detrimental to the interest of the School and therefore, the Managing Committee of the School was constrained to issue charge sheet-cumsuspension order dated 25.5.2010. It is further submitted that the appellant-School is a proprietary School and is run by an autonomous body and therefore, the Jharkhand Academic Council has no role to play with respect to the Management of the School. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal allowed the petition of respondent No.3 mainly on the ground that the School has been provided grant-in-aid by the State Government on 25.2.2010 amounting to Rs.1,58,881/- and Rs. 16,667/- by two separate Bank Drafts dated 26.2.2010 and 4.3.2010 respectively for the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and also on the ground that on 14.6.2007 the Jharkhand Academic Council had duly constituted a Managing Committee of the School. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the School is a proprietary School and the issue of recognition of the School was pending with the State Government and therefore, Jharkhand Academic Council has noauthority and control over the School much less to constitute a Managing Committee. It is further submitted that even the Jharkhand Academic Council has also admitted this fact before the Tribunal in its counter-affidavit. Learned Senior Counsel, while referring Section 7 of the Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2002, pointed out that this provision is applicable in respect of permanent recognized School but the School run by the appellants was not a permanent recognized School under Section 7 of the Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2002 and therefore, constitution of a Managing Committee on 14.6.2007 was invalid and without jurisdiction and cannot be legally enforced. It is further submitted that grant-in-aid was given by the Government under the provision of Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act which clearly shows that the School was an unaided educational institution and it was run by the Society. It is further submitted that the Jharkhand Education Tribunal has committed an error in law as well as on facts by allowing the petition of the respondent No.3 and has failed to consider that the respondent No.3 is not acting in the interest of the School and has also committed financial loss to the organization.