Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 100
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Lakshman Shastri
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 884 of 1961 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 20, 1965
The provision relating to time in the note to Rule 12 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, is directory and not mandatory.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 - Rule 12 - Suspension of teacher - Period of suspension - Whether mandatory or directory - Interpretation of statutory provisions - Principles to be considered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Pandit in a Government-aided school, was discharged from service by a resolution of the Managing Committee of the school. He appealed to the President of the Board of Secondary Education, who rejected the appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of discharge and rejection of appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provision relating to time in the note to Rule 12 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, which provides that a teacher shall not be kept under suspension for a period exceeding 30 days, is directory and not mandatory. The court also held that the enquiry against the petitioner was not vitiated by the fact that it was held at a distance of eight miles from the school premises, as the circumstances warranted such a decision. Further, the court held that the President of the Board of Secondary Education was not required to give reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeal, as he had the Regional Deputy Director of Education's report before him.
Issues: 1. Whether the provision relating to time in the note to Rule 12 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, is mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the enquiry against the petitioner was vitiated by the fact that it was held at a distance of eight miles from the school premises? 3. Whether the President of the Board of Secondary Education was required to give reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provision relating to time in the note to Rule 12 of the Bihar High Schools (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960, is directory and not mandatory, based on the following principles: - The object of the provision has to be considered, and it has to be seen whether a time clause in it is a matter of substance. - The time clause will not be considered to be mandatory unless its non-observance will result in the object of the provision being frustrated. 2. The court held that the enquiry against the petitioner was not vitiated by the fact that it was held at a distance of eight miles from the school premises, as the circumstances warranted such a decision, based on the following reasons: - The petitioner had instigated the students of the school to go on strike and even formed an action committee for the purpose. - The petitioner held out threats against the life of the Headmaster and other teachers. - Some irresponsible persons, at the instigation of the petitioner, attempted to create a breach of the peace and to disturb a meeting of the Managing Committee. - The irresponsible persons held a meeting in the school premises on the same date and passed resolutions condemning the Managing Committee. - Various persons, at the instance of the petitioner, attempted to create a breach of the peace as a result of which the Headmaster had to send information to the police authorities. 3. The court held that the President of the Board of Secondary Education was not required to give reasons for rejecting the petitioner's appeal, as he had the Regional Deputy Director of Education's report before him.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition with costs.
Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was employed as a Head Pandit in the Government-aided Balbhadra Multi-purpose High English School, Babhangama, in Muzaffarpur District (hereinafter to be referred to as the School). By a resolution of the Managing Committee of the school, dated the 9th December, 1959, he was discharged from service. Information relating to this discharge was conveyed to him by the Secretary in his letter No. 478, dated the 10th December, 1959 (annexure XIII to the main application). The petitioner filed an appeal before the President of the Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board). The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, called upon the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the School to appear before him, along with all their documents and witnesses, on the 11th June, 1961. The petitioner examined five witnesses before him. He also produced some documents on the 2nd July, 1961. After fully hearing the parties, the Regional Deputy Director submitted his report to the President of the Board, who, by an order dated the 5th August, 1961, rejected the appeal. The petitioner has filed the present application in this Court on the 25th September, 1961. He has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated the 10th December, 1959, of the Secretary (Managing Committee) of the Balbhadra High English School, whereby he discharged the petitioner from service as a teacher in the school with effect from the 9th December, 1959, and also the order of the President of the Board, whereby he rejected the appeal. As I have already mentioned, the Secretary did not pass an order of discharge; but by his letter dated the 10th December, 1959, he merely conveyed to the petitioner the resolution of the Managing Committee dated the 9th December, discharging the petitioner from service with effect from the 9th December. 1959.
2. I may now briefly mention the material facts of the case. The petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Head Pandit in the school in January. 1953. He was made permanent in 1957.
3. It is stated on behalf of the opposite party in the counter affidavit that, at a meeting of the Managing Committee held on the 30th September, 1959, under the Presidentship of the Sub-divisional Officer of Silamarhi (ex-officio President of the Committee), the Committee suspended the petitioner with effect from noon on the 1st October, 1959, and directed an explanation to be called for from the petitioner relating to certain charges which were framed against him. It also appointed a subcommittee of four of its members to enquire into the charges.
4. By letter No. 390, dated the 1st October, 1959, the Secretary of the school (opposite party No. 2) conveyed the charges to the petitioner, called for an explanation from him, and informed him of his suspension in accordance with the resolution of the Managing Committee, saying further that the Managing Committee would finally decide the matter. In substance, the petitioner was charged with having incited the students to go on strike, held out threats to those students who did not join in the strike, with having plotted to create hatred against the Principal and some teachers and held out threats of physical violence against them. On the 3rd October, some more charges were added against the petitioner, and they were conveyed to him by letter No. 395. The fact that the petitioner was suspended with effect from noon on the 1st October was reiterated in this letter. On the 14th October, letter No. 398 was sent by the Secretary to the petitioner, asking him to submit an explanation in connection with the charges framed and conveyed to him under Idlers Nos. 390 and 395 within a week from receipt of the letters. Admittedly, the letters were served upon the petitioner on the 18th October. He submitted his explanation on the 22nd October.
5. By letter No. 418, dated the 8th November, 1959, the petitioner was in
