- (1.) HEARD Shri Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Shri V. R. Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) THE above Petition challenges the Judgment/Order dated 24.06.2008, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the Petitioner herein to the maintainability of the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1, came to be rejected. Shri Noorani, learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that in terms of Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, (herein after referred to as the 'said Act'), the Management is not entitled to pursue an appeal whereby the permission to grant major penalty has been refused. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that, as in the present case, the Respondent no.1/Management has preferred such Appeal, the learned Tribunal was not justified to come to the conclusion that the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no. 1 was maintainable. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that Rule 97 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 clearly provides that in cases in which the major penalty has been imposed, the aggrieved employee is entitled to prefer an Appeal to the Tribunal. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further submits that in view of the said provisions of Rule 97 of the Rules which does not contemplate an Appeal to be filed on behalf of the Management, the learned Tribunal was not justified to come to the conclusion that the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 was maintainable in law. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further submits that only an Appeal on behalf of an employee is maintainable in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act and, as such, the question of entertaining the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 by the Tribunal, is totally erroneous. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has also taken me through the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act as well as the provisions of Rule 97 and pointed out that upon reading the said provisions together, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Appeal is maintainable is only at the instance of the employee and not the Management. Learned Addl. Government Advocate as such submits that the impugned Order/Judgment of the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 before the learned Tribunal be rejected as not maintainable.
(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Tamba, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, has supported the impugned Judgment/Order. Learned Counsel has pointed out that on plain reading of the provision of Section 22 of the said Act, an Order passed under Section 11(2) of the said Act is appeal-able under sub-section (e) of Section 22 of the said Act. Learned Counsel further pointed out that on plain reading of Rule 95 of the said Rules, it clearly provides that any Order refusing permission by the Director of Education, is subject to the Order under Section 22 of the said Act. Learned Counsel further submits that considering that Section 22 contemplates an Appeal under the said Act, the inescapable conclusion is that the order refusing permission by the Director, is subject to an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the provisions of law and, as such, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment.;