K.SREEDHARAN, C.J. - (1.)These Special Civil Applications can virtually be considered as cross-petitions. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4457 of 1983 was working as a Craft Teacher in the school run by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6022 of 1983. On account of alleged misconduct on the part of the teacher an enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the report of the Committee, which enquired into the misconduct, services of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4457 of 1983 were terminated by order dated 1 1-6-1982. That order was challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application on the ground that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Authority to get his grievances redressed. Teacher went in appeal, questioning the order of termination of his services. Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Order of the Appellate Authority was questioned before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2021 of 1983. This Court, without granting any relief to the teacher, referred him to the Revisional Authority. Revisional Authority, viz., District Educational Officer, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of termination on the ground that no proper enquiry was conducted into the misconduct. Consequently, management was directed to reinstate the teacher with all backwages. Management did not give effect to that decision. Therefore, the teacher has come up with Special Civil Application No. 4457 of 1983. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Revisional Authority, the Management of the school preferred Special Civil Application No. 6022 of 1983. In these circumstances, we consider it advantageous to dispose of these Special Civil Applications by a common judgment.
(2.)As stated earlier, petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4457 of 1983 was working as a craft teacher. He joined service in the school way back in 1973. Even after putting in nearly 9 years of service, he was not confirmed. By letter dated 12-6-1982, he was suspended from service on the allegation that he was guilty of misconduct. Two charges, in relation to which further proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, were in relation to awarding of excess marks and tampering with the mark-list of a student, by name Sanjay Jain. His explanations were called for. He submitted two explainations on 29-4-1982 and 3-5-1982. When such explanations were not found acceptable formal charges into the said allegation were framed and served on him. Thereafter, he submitted his defence on 1-7-1982. Dissatisfied with the explanation, a Committee was appointed to enquire into the misconduct. That Committee consisted of three persons, two nominated by the Management and one selected by the Teacher. On the basis of the documents before the Committee, the delinquent teacher was examined. His evidence, along with the documents, was considered by the Committee and the Committee found him guilty of the misconduct. On the basis of the report submitted by the Committee, Management dismissed the teacher from service. Revisional Authority has interfered with the order of dismissal. Correctness or otherwise of that order is the subject-matter in these proceedings.
(3.)Learned Counsel representing the petitioner-teacher challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that the disciplinary action initiated by the Management is against Schedule 'F' to the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 as applicable in Gujarat. As per the provision contained in Schedule 'F' there should have been a full-fladged enquiry into the misconduct, by examining the witnesses and by proving documents. In the instant case, this procedure was not restored to. The delinquent teacher alone was examined in the enquiry. No other witness was examined. So, the enquiry is not held in conformity with the principles of natural justice. This view was accepted by the Revisional Authority. The decision rendered by the Revisional Authority should have been implemented by the Management. This having not been done, the Management should be directed to reinstate the teacher in service with backwages.