The dismissal of a teacher for moral turpitude was upheld as the inquiry followed due process and justified the charges against him.

JUDGMENT :

(Biren Vaishnav, J.)

1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been filed by the State of Gujarat, challenging the oral judgement dated 10.09.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge, in a petition filed by the Teacher, allowed the petition reversing the order of the Education Tribunal which had dismissed his application. By dismissing the application, the Tribunal had upheld the order of dismissal of the applicant – original petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

3. Briefly, the facts indicate that the respondent No.1 was engaged as a Teacher in the school – respondent No.4, run by the respondent No.3-Trust. The school found that he was having an illicit relationship with a colleague teacher. Charges were framed, based on which a departmental inquiry by a duly constituted Committee was held and the respondent No.1 having found to have committed misconduct, was dismissed from service.

3.1 On a challenge to his dismissal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal confirmed the order. The learned Single Judge, reversed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement. The order of the learned Single Judge is stayed pending the appeal.

4. Mr.Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant – State, would make the following submission:

4.1 That the learned Single Judge committed an error in not appreciating the fact that full opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent herein in the enquiry and that certain insignificant lapses would not vitiate the enquiry or the order of dismissal.

4.2 That the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate and consider that the management and the approving authority have objectively considered the facts and thereafter came to the conclusion that the respondent herein cannot be retained in service and also that neither the Tribunal nor this Court can examine the matter as Appellate Authority but only procedural aspects can be gone into.

4.3 That though the third Member of the Committee was ill, but after his recovery, his opinion/decision has been considered by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment.

5. Mr.Sanat Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, supported the order of the learned Single Judge. He would submit that the inquiry was held in violation of principles of natural justice. In the submission of Mr.Pandya, the inquiry held in absence of a third Member, who could not participate, was bad. That there was no evidence before the Inquiry Officer to hold the charge to be proved.

6. Mr.R.R.Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the Management, would support the appellant – State. He would submit that the Inquiry Committee was rightly constituted in accordance with Rule 27 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 Rules. Once the Tribunal had found the order of dismissal to be just and proper, the learned Single Judge could not have upset the same.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and having perused the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Education Tribunal, it is evident that after appreciating the contentions and aspects, the fact finding authority i.e. the Education Tribunal held thus:

“4.1 After going through the documents and hearing the arguments, it is clear that looking to the charges bothe the cases cannot be tried separately or dealt with separately. The charges are based on the conduct and behaviour of a male teacher (Application No. 108/96) and of a female teacher (Application No. 115/96) with each other, either of them cannot be held guilty or either of them cannot be exonerated as innocent.

4.2 The main charge against Shri Shaikh is that there are complaints from the co-teacher that he always works together with one Assistant Teacher Smt. Pushpaben Patel. They try to work together for any educational work or for preparation of class register and in the guise of doing work with the help of each other they a