2010 Supreme(SC) 131

2010 (1) Supreme 633
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ms. G. Vallikumari — Appellants
versus
Andhra Education Society and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.5508 of 2003
Decided on : 02-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the concerned authority.

Headnote:Delhi School Education Act, 1973- Sections 12,8(2)- Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Rule 120(2) -Appeal against order passed by High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and declared Section 12 of Act, 1973 ultra vires the provisions of Constitution and in so far applicability of the exclusion clause contained therein was restricted to unaided minority institutions, that Section 8(2) of Act was not applicable to minority institutions and set aside the direction given by Delhi School Tribunal for reinstatement of appellant with all consequential benefits-Relying upon decisions in case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees’ Association v. Union of India and Y.Theclamma v. Union of India held that Section 8(1), (3), (4) and (5) of the Act do not violate the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions-However, Section 8(2) interferes with the said right of the minorities and is, therefore, inapplicable to private recognized aided/unaided minority educational institutions- Section 12 of the Act, which makes the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act inapplicable to unaided private recognized minority educational institutions is discriminatory except to extent of Section 8(2)-In other words, Chapter IV of the Act except Section 8(2) is applicable to private recognized aided as well as unaided minority educational institutions and concerned authorities of the education department are bound to enforce the same against all such institutions (Para 12)

        Delhi School Education Act, 1973- Sections 12,8(2)- Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 - Rule 120(2) -Appeal against order passed by High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and declared Section 12 of Act, 1973 ultra vires the provisions of Constitution and in so far applicability of the exclusion clause contained therein was restricted to unaided minority institutions, that Section 8(2) of Act was not applicable to minority institutions and set aside the direction given by Delhi School Tribunal for reinstatement of appellant with all consequential benefits- In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee referred to the allegations leveled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by inquiry officer but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service-Hence held that there was no escape from the conclusion that order of punishment was passed by Chairman without complying with the mandate of relevant statutory rule and principles of natural justice- Perusal of Tribunal’s order showed that though it did not find any procedural infirmity in the inquiry against the appellant, order passed by Chairman of Managing Committee was nullified only on ground of violation of Section 8(2) of Act read with Rule 120(2) of Rules inasmuch as permission of Director was not obtained before removing the appellant from service- High Court set aside order of Tribunal and indirectly restored the order passed by Chairman of Managing Committee because it was of view that Section 8(2) was not applicable to the minority institutions- Neither the Tribunal nor the Division Bench of High Court dealt with and decided the appellant’s challenge to findings recorded by inquiry officer and her plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed on her was not justified because she was not found guilty of any serious misconduct- Since order of punishment passed by Chairman of Managing Committee was vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice, matter could have been remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to consider whether or not the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant was disproportionate to misconduct found against her or the action taken by the management was wholly arbitrary or unjust but keeping in view the fact that the appellant was removed from service more than 13 years ago, held not proper to adopt that course-Held ends of justice would be met by substituting the punishment of removal from service imposed on appellant with the penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect with a direction that she shall be paid only 20% of back wages during the intervening period-Impugned order of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed.

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and declared Section 12 of Act, 1973 ultra vires the provisions of Constitution and in so far applicability of the exclusion clause contained therein was restricted to unaided minority institutions, that Section 8(2) of Act was not applicable to minority institutions and set aside the direction given by Delhi School Tribunal for reinstatement of appellant with all consequential benefits (Paras13 to 18)

       Findings of the Court :

        Even though in his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee referred to the allegations leveled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by inquiry officer but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Hence held that there was no escape from the conclusion that order of punishment was passed by Chairman without complying with the mandate of relevant statutory rule and principles of natural justice. Perusal of Tribunal’s order showed that though it did not find any procedural infirmity in the inquiry against the appellant, order passed by Chairman of Managing Committee was nullified only on ground of violation of Section 8(2) of Act read with Rule 120(2) of Rules inasmuch as permission of Director was not obtained before removing the appellant from service. High Court set aside order of Tribunal and indirectly restored the order passed by Chairman of Managing Committee because it was of view that Section 8(2) was not applicable to the minority institutions. Neither the Tribunal nor the Division Bench of High Court dealt with and decided the appellant’s challenge to findings recorded by inquiry officer and her plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed on her was not justified because she was not found guilty of any serious misconduct. Since order of punishment passed by Chairman of Managing Committee was vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice, matter could have been remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to consider whether or not the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant was disproportionate to misconduct found against her or the action taken by the management was wholly arbitrary or unjust but keeping in view the fact that the appellant was removed from service more than 13 years ago, held not proper to adopt that course. It was held that ends of justice would be met by substituting the punishment of removal from service imposed on appellant with the penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect with a direction that she shall be paid only 20% of back wages during the intervening period.Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed

       Result : Appeal allowed