( 51 ) ON behalf of the respondents the stand taken by their learned counsel was that Mr. Manley or the Headmaster had no bias or prejudice against the petititioner and that they had been most considerate in their treatment of the petitioner and action was taken for terminating bis services in good faith and as a result of objective assessment of the deterioration in his efficiency, work and conduct. The Board was stated to have been kept fully informed at all stages and that the fact finding Committee to have been appointed under orders of the Board. It was submitted that Sarvshri G. K. Chandramani and P. Gangulee were rightly appointed as representatives of the Government on the Board and it was incorrect to say that (here was no quorum for the meeting of the Board held on February 10, 1967. In any event, it was urged, any defect in the nomination of any persons to act as members of the Board could not invalidate its proceedings by virtue of regulation 6. It was stated that no enquiry was required for taking action under rule 10 (ix) of the School Rules doe to the termination of services under that rule not being a penalty. The procedure adopted was mentioned to have been resorted to mainly with the object of satisfying the mind of the Board and the Headmaster that no injustice was being done to the petitioner. It was also contended that the principles of natural justice were fully complied with.

( 52 ) THE averments contained in the petition to show as to why Mr. Manley had turned against the petitioner were to the effect that the Bursar had started taking various kinds of private services from the petitioner but that after some time the petitioner had to refuse to unduly oblige the Bursar. The Headmaster was as well stated to have "became inimical towards the petitioner and tried to harm him," on being influenced by the Bursar. Another allegation made was that the Bursar had used abusive language against the petitioner

( 53 ) IN his affidavit Mr Manley stated that it was wrong to suggest that he had extracted any special private services from the petitioner. He, however, frankly admitted that for about an year or a bit longer he used to ask the Quartermaster to do petty private jobs for him on bis official visits to Chandigarh in the School bus, such as to "bring a little firuit or bread, or have a badminton racket restrung. ". He added that there had been a practice for members of the staff to obtain their petty personal requirements from places like Chandigarh or Arobala owing to the isolated and out of way location of the School. It was emphatically asserted that there was no question of the petititioner obliging him in any way or that the petitioner had refused to bring those things for him or for any othar member of the staff Mr Manley as well affirmed that long before the trouble started be had stopped getting thuigs through the petitioner as he had realised that the latter was a person who may unduly exploit even this sort of thing. The allegations about bis filling embittered against the petitioner or influencing the Headmaster or using any abusive language for the petitioner were unequive- cally denied The Headmaster also filed an affidevit in which he took the stand that he had "always treated the petitioner generously and has never had anything personal against him. "

( 54 ) NO details were given by the petitioner regarding the alleged various kinds of private services which according to him the Bursar had been taking from him. It thus appears that the facts stated in the affidavit of Mr. Manley are correct. It was a very petty matter if on his visits to Chandigarh or Ambala, in the School bus, the petitioner had brought small articles like fruit or bread for the Bursar or other members of the staff. The allegation that the Bursar turned against him due to his inability to oblige the former in the matter of rendering private services, it seems were made to make his case more plausible. It is, however, not necessar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document