Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4819/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4819 of 2008
==========================================
MAHENDRASINH
DURLABHSINH THAKOR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PRESIDENT-
SHRI KOLAK VIBHAG SARVAJANIK KELAVANI MANDAL & 2 - Respondent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR MUKUND M DESAI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS TEJAL A VASHI for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 24/09/2008
ORAL ORDER
By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
substantive relief.
?SB)
to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari any any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat Secondary Education
Tribunal dated 18.10.2007 in Application No.147 of 1998 and the order
dated 18.1.1998 ratifying the proposal and that passed by the school
management dated 25.2.1998 dismissing the petitioner from service and
further be pleased to declare that the petitioner has been wrongly
dismissed from service and reinstate him in service with full
backwages and all other consequential benefits right from the date
when he is dismissed from service.
C)
pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 18.10.2007
passed in Application No.147 of 1998 by the Hon’ble Gujarat Secondary
Education Tribunal, be stayed in the interest of justice??
The
short facts of the case are as under:-
The
petitioner joined respondent school as Principal during the year
199-92. On account of one incident of misconduct with school girl
studying in Std.IX by the petitioner, pursuant to which one
letter/notice issued to the petitioner on 2.7.1996.
The
petitioner vide his letter dated 13.7.96 replied to the notice.
However, on 26.11.1997 inquiry was initiated against the petitioner
and inquiry report was submitted. Out of three members of the
Inquiry Committee, two members have exonerated the petitioner from
all the charges levelled against him.
On
29.11.97, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which
petitioner replied on 8.12.1997. The proposal thereafter was sent
by the school management to the District Education Officer and on
25.2.98 without following due process of law under Section 36 of
the Act, petitioner was dismissed from the service.
Being
aggrieved by the dismissal order, petitioner preferred Application
No.147 of 1998 before the Hon’ble Tribunal which came to have been
dismissed by the Tribunal on 18.10.2007.
Being
aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 18.10.2007 passed by the
Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing
the present petition.
The
learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that two members
out of three of the Inquiry Committee have exonerated him from the
charges levelled against him. The learned advocate has submitted
that on the date of alleged incident of misbehaviour with Ms.Pragati
Sukani i.e. 26.6.1996, the petitioner was on duty leave and hence,
the statement of Ms.Pragati Sukani should not be believed and taken
into consideration as emphasized by the District Education Officer
overlooking the inquiry report submitted by the school management to
him. The learned Advocate has also submitted that the Tribunal while
passing the order of dismissal of the petitioner has not given
reasoned order.
The
learned advocate Ms.Tejal Vashi who appears on caveat has submitted
that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order of dismissal against
the petitioner after going through all materials scrutinized by the
Inquiry Committee. The learned advocate has submitted that the order
of dismissal passed by the Tribunal does not require any
interference by this Hon’ble Court since it is passed in its true
spirit. The learned advocate has drawn attention of the Court to
page-53 of the petition which is a compromise arrived at between the
petitioner and the school management wherein the petitioner
undertook that he would leave the school.
I
have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through
the materials adduced before the Tribunal by the Inquiry Committee.
I am in complete agreement with the findings given by the learned
Tribunal in its para-7 wherein he has given reasons in detail while
rejecting the application of the petitioner. It is also to be noted
that the charges against the petitioner are of very serious nature
and in such a case no person like the petitioner should have to
continue with any school management emphasizing the safety major of
students studying in such school. The charges levelled against the
petitioner appear to be proved looking to the evidence of 9
witnesses and, therefore, the Tribunal relying upon such evidence
has rightly dismissed the petitioner from service.
With
the above observation, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
Amit/-
Top