- (1.) Both these special leave petitions are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High court quashing the decision of the Director of Education, respondent I, and restoring respondents 3 and 4 to their posts with consequential benefits. The High court has mentioned the facts relating to respondent 3 in some detail and has said that the case of respondent 4 is similar. The learned counsel for the parties have also advanced their arguments before us with reference to the facts concerning respondent 3.
(2.) Respondent 3 was an employee under the petitioner-Society. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in which he was ultimately dismissed. This order was set aside by the Deputy Director of Education on 18/12/1980, and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director of Education, respondent 1. While entertaining the appeal, respondent 1 passed an order on 11/02/1981, a true copy whereof is Annx. 'a at pages 16 and 17 of the paper book. Respondent 3 moved the High court with a writ application claiming inter alia that the appeal before the Director of Education should be disposed of expeditiously. The High court, accordingly, directed respondent 1 to dispose of the appeal within a period of one month. In pursuance of this judgment the Director of Education took up the hearing of the appeal and by his order (as in Annx. 'c to the paper book) allowed the appeal, quashed the decision of the Deputy Director of Education and confirmed the order of dismissal of the respondent. Respondent 3 challenged the directors decision before the High court in Writ Petition No. 406 of 1985, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 29/11/1988.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.;