JUDGMENT- R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---The judgment and order dated 17-2-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the School Tribunal in Appeal No. TR/4/EN/144/1982 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. By this judgment and order, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 4, permitting him to resume the duties by reinstating him in service on the post of a teacher and also directing the petitioner management to pay arrears of salary and allowances due and payable to the respondent No. 4. The order dated 12-1-1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nasik Division, Nasik, is set-aside.

2.In nutshell, the facts of the case are:

On 12-6-1973 the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the High School run by the petitioner society, in a clear vacancy, where he worked from June, 1973 to August, 1976. The respondent No. 4 after having served for about three years was permitted to proceed for his B.Ed. training on deputation. However, it was on leave without pay from August, 1976, to April 1977. No doubt, the respondent No. 4 completed the B.Ed. training course from Sagar University and on completion he returned to his original duties from May 1, 1977. The teacher who was appointed in place of the respondent No. 4 as a substitute and in the leave vacancy of respondent No. 4 was then relieved by the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 resumed his duties as mentioned above and worked from June, 1977 till the end of academic session of 1978-79. It would not be out of place to mention here itself that on his completing B.Ed. course, the respondent No. 4 was paid salary as a trained Graduate Teacher.

3.On 7-2-1979, the respondent No. 4 was served with the show cause notice by the petitioner, which was duly replied by the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the "teacher" for the purposes of brevity) by his reply dated 20-2-1979, however, the management did not initiate any action. After summer vacation of 1979, on the reopening of the school i.e. on 11-6-1979, the teacher, when presented himself in the school for joining his duties as usual, to his surprise, was prevented by the Head Master from joining the duty and informed him to bring permission of the management i.e. the Chairman of the society to resume the duties and thus, the teacher was not allowed to join his duties.

4.The efforts on the part of the teacher to obtain necessary permission and to know the reason as to why he was not allowed to join the duties were in vain and the teacher was required to move the Education Officer, Jalgaon, by an application seeking his intervention in the matter. It is the contention of the teacher that not permitting him to join the duties virtually amounted to oral termination of his services. The application which was moved by the teacher to the Education Officer was dated 12-6-1979. The teacher received letter dated 7-11-1979 from the Chairman of the society on 10-11-1979 whereby he was informed about the constitution of the Enquiry Committee under Rule 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code and the teacher was directed to nominate his representative on the Enquiry Committee, which, according to the management, was constituted to inquire into the conduct of the teacher. The time gap between the issuance of the show cause notice and obtaining of the explanation and that of constitution of the Enquiry Committee was of ten months and therefore, the respondent No. 4 teacher objected to such a constitution of the Enquiry Committee. According to him, the constitution of the Enquiry Committee was against the provisions of Rule 77.3(ii) and (iii) of the Secondary Schools Code. Needless to mention that in pursuance of the letter referred to above, the petitioner had already suggested the name of his representative. However, the copy of the resolution which was demanded by the teacher regarding setting up of the Enquiry Committee was not given to him. The res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document