BHAGWATIBEN SANTKUMAR BACHANI Vs. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, AHMEDABAD
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-27
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 28,1988

Bhagwatiben Santkumar Bachani Appellant
VERSUS
Director Of Education, Ahmedabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Petitioner, a Primary School Teacher serving under the authorised muncicipality, i.e. Surat Municipal Corporation and the Surat Municipal School Committee, has challenged the order of termination dated January 22, 1979 by the Admimistrative Officer, Nagar Prathmik Sikshan Samiti, Surat as the petitioner did not join the training class at Adhyapan Mandir as directed by the said Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed -as the Primary School Teacher on or about July 1972 and was posted in School No. 88 as a teacher in Sindhi language. The teachers, governed by the provisions of the Bombay Primary Education Act and Bombay Primary Education Rules, have to undergo the training and accordingly, the directions were issued by the Director of Education, Gujarat State. According to the petitioner, such training is imparted at Vanita Vishram Adhyapan Mandir, Surat and at Sardar (Male) Adhyapon Mandir, Vadodara. By an order dated June 5, 1978, the petitioner was directed to proceed to Sardar (Male) Adhyapan Mandir, Vadodara for the period of two years at her own expenses and the Head Master of the school was directed to relieve the petitioner from duties with effect from June 17, 1978, so as to enable the petitioner to join the training commencing on June 19, 1978. On receiving the order on June 8, 1978, the petitioner applied to the Director of Education on June 10, 1978 and to the Administrative Officer for directing her. to take training at Surat as she had to maintain her family, look after her minor children and because of the financial constraints. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Civil Suit, which was dismissed and the Special Civil Application No. 2141 of 1978 was also summarily rejected and the Letters Patent Appeal No. 30 of 1979 was also dismissed with certain observations. Meanwhile, the Director of Education by his Letter dated June 1, 1979 addressed to the second respondent -Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board, Surat, directed to comply with his previous order dated 18, 1978 to accommodate the petitioner in Vanita Vishram Adhyapan Mandir, Surat. Respondent No.
(2.)-Administrative Officer did not comply with said letter and passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner. 2. Under Section 20, Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, the Authorised municipality has to maintain the adequate number of Primary School Teachers and other members of staff for the administration, management and control of the approved schools and such Primary Schools Teachers are the employees of the authorised municipality. As provided in Rule 63 of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, the Administrative Officer of the Municipal School Board is the Chief Executive and has the powers to supervise, control and co -ordinate the work of the staff maintained by the authorised municipality under Section 20 and has also the powers to retire from service, subject to such general instructions as may, from time to time, be issued by the Director in that behalf. The proviso to sub -rule (2) of Rule 63 specifically provides that no order of reduction, removal, retirement or dismissal shall be passed unless the inquiry has been made into the conduct of such member by the Administrative Officer or by a person authorised by him in that behalf in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Bombay Civil Service Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Statutorily, therefore, the departmental proceedings for the misconduct of such employees like the petitioner are governed by the provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, which provide for the procedure for the major punishment of dismissal from the service. The charge was required to be served and inquiry should be held and only after the prescribed procedure, the services of such employee could be terminated. No procedure was followed by the Administrative Officer, and, therefore, the order terminating the services vitiates and is required to be struck down. (ISS) Rule made absolute.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.