Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2922/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2922 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4374 of 2010
=========================================================
SHREE
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU EDUCATION INSTITUTE – Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
OF MID DAY MEALS AND SCHOOLS & 1 – Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HJ NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MRS KRINA CALLA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 24/06/2010
ORAL
COMMON ORDER
1. As
common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions,
they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The
petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 2922 of 2010 has prayed
to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2010 passed by
the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad in
Appeal No. 1 of 2007, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
was rejected.
2.1.
The petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 4374 of 2010 has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by
the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad in
Application No. 53 of 2008, whereby the application challenging the
partial order to restart the inquiry was rejected.
3. The
short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Trust duly
registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. The
petitioner Trust is running Primary and Higher Secondary school at
Probandar. The respondent no. 2 herein was working as a Assistant
Teacher in the Higher Secondary School of the petitioner school. The
petitioner on 03.04.2006 served a show cause notice to respondent no.
2 to show cause as to why action should not be taken against her for
breach of the provisions of Code of Conduct. The respondent no. 2
submitted her reply vide reply dated 11.05.2006. However, during the
pendency of the inquiry, respondent no. 2 was suspended from the
service vide order dated 13.06.2006, which was ultimately ratified by
respondent no. 1 vide order dated 20.07.2006.
2.1. Thereafter,
the petitioner proceeded with the inquiry pending against respondent
no. 2. On completion of the inquiry, on the basis of the reports of
the respective representatives of the parties, the petitioner on
05.05.2007 issued second cause notice to respondent no. 2. The
respondent no. 2 submitted his reply vide reply dated 30.05.2007.
Pursuant thereto, the Management of the petitioner school vide its
Resolution dated 07.06.2007 dismissed respondent no. 2 from the
service. On the basis of the said decision, the Management of the
petitioner school vide letter dated 14.06.2007 sent a proposal to the
Commissioner respondent no. 1, herein for grant of approval, qua the
action of removal of respondent no. 2 from service. The respondent
no. 1 after hearing both the parties vide order dated 07.07.2007
disapproved the action of the Management of the petitioner school.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal
being Appeal No. 1 of 2007 before the Gujarat Higher Secondary School
Services Tribunal [“the Tribunal” for short]. The
Tribunal vide order dated 03.02.2010 dismissed the said appeal.
However, the order dated 07.07.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 qua
permitting the Management of the petitioner school to restart the
enquiry was challenged by respondent no. 2 by preferring an
application being Application No. 53 of 2008 before the Tribunal,
The Tribunal vide order dated 03.02.2010 rejected the said
application. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It appears that certain documents pertaining to inquiry
were not produced before respondent no. 1. Apart from that though
respondent no. 1 had directed the Management of the petitioner school
to produce the entire documents of inquiry before him, the same were
not produced by the Management of the petitioner school. Hence, the
respondent no. 1 after considering the record produced by both the
respective parties passed the impugned order dated 07.07.2007 and
also directed the Management of the petitioner school to restart the
inquiry against respondent no. 2, if they desire.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that the inquiry
held against respondent no. 2 was defective from its initiation, the
respondent no. 1 was completely justified in passing the impugned
order. I am in complete agreement with the order passed by the
respondent authority and hence I do not find any reason to interfere
in both these petitions.
5. Consequently,
both the petitions stand dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated. However, it will be open for the
Management of the petitioner school restart the inquiry as they
deemed fit.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top