The court emphasized the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the principle that judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact as long as they are reasonably supported by evidence and arrived at through a fair process.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against oral judgment dated 18/19.07.2006 by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application No. 216 of 2004.

2. Though the petition is styled to be petition under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, learned Advocate for the respondent has raised a preliminary contention that the petition being against oral judgment of the Education Tribunal, the same would be maintainable only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, examination of the impugned oral judgment will have to be in a restricted manner.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the order of removal from service is passed by the management after carrying out departmental inquiry by the Inquiry Committee constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, however, the petitioner had objected to inclusion of one of the constituent members, viz. Mr. Navnit Parikh, as according to the petitioner, the said committee member had an axe to grind and on earlier point of time, had filed complaint with the Police Station anticipating disturbance of law and order, wherein he had named, amongst other persons, the petitioner as also one of the participants.

3.1 Learned Advocate has thereafter, tried to raise a contention that issuance of the charge sheet by the management is not under the signature of the Principal, as according to Section 35 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, the Principal is the appointing authority and therefore, entire proceeding to be vitiated as having been initiated by an authority not authorized to undertake such action. Learned Advocate has thereafter tried to submit that the petitioner was always discriminated even during the proceedings before the Inquiry Committee and none of the contentions raised by the petitioner were addressed by the Committee. It is submitted that the entire Committee was, in fact, dominated by said Mr. Navnit Parikh and therefore, the petitioner, at the initial stage itself, had objected to him being participant in the Committee.

4. As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate any procedural lapse. Moreover, when the inquiry has proceeded as per the provisions of law, powers of this Court under Article 227 would be restricted as held by the Apex Court in case of Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2003) 3 SCC 524. He drew attention of this Court to para-7 of the said judgment.

4.1 Learned Advocate thereafter submitted that the facts of the present case do not warrant any judicial review and when already, the Inquiry Committee has found the petitioner guilty of the misconduct for which he was charged, and therefore, approved by the DEO and ultimately, the Education Tribunal has also examined entire inquiry proceedings and has approved by the impugned oral judgment, there is no scope for any interference by this Court.

4.2 Learned Advocate for the respondent lastly relied upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759.

5. In rejoinder, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned oral judgment is required to be set aside as no evidence was adduced before the Tribunal while application was being conducted and no witnesses were examined by either side and therefore, decision of the Tribunal is not based on any evidence.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, at the outset it appears that the impugned oral judgment clearly records that when the consent of both parties, entire record of the departmental proceeding was placed on record, pursuant to which it is recorded that the parties have chosen not to adduce any oral evidence. In that view of the matter, contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner of the matter being based on no e