The court established that failure to complete a departmental inquiry within the prescribed period invalidates the dismissal, entitling the employee to retirement benefits.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865. The captioned Letters Patent Appeal No. 482 of 2015 in Special Civil Application No. 8492 of 2003 emanates from the judgment and order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.R. Udhwani), wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to the District Education Officer (DEO) after 16 years by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 280 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No. 19162 of 2015 emanates from the judgment and order dated 10.01.2017, wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge (Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani) has again remanded the matter to the DEO.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The appellant as of now is more than 78 years of age. She was appointed as a teacher in the year 1977. She was subsequently appointed as a Principal in the school run by the respondent No. 1 on 07.01.1986. Thereafter, she was suspended by the order dated 27.11.1998 in the contemplation of the departmental inquiry and thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 12.12.1998 was issued to her. It appears that Application No. 29 of 1999 was filed by before the Gujarat Education Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) assailing the departmental inquiry. It was the case of the appellant that some relevant documents were not supplied to her and the same were supplied after the order passed by the Tribunal and ultimately, a charge-sheet dated 10.02.1999 has been issued to her.

3. After holding a regular departmental inquiry, the appellant was dismissed. The same was approved by the DEO vide order dated 12.10.1999 by invoking the power under the provisions of Section 36(1)(b) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1972. The same was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal by the appellant vide Application No. 382 of 1999. The Tribunal, by the judgment and order dated 25.02.2003 dismissed the said application along with Application No. 250 of 1999. Thus, both the applications were dismissed by the Tribunal by recording that “ Except for the period of absence of applicant at the head quarter, for rest of the period till the date of her dismissal the management shall pay 50% salary difference to the applicant within a period of one month.”

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dismissing the applications, the appellant filed the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 8492 of 2003 assailing the impugned order of dismissal, approval order of the DEO as well as order of the Tribunal. By the judgment and order dated 30.09.2014, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the impugned order of dismissal, approval order of the DEO as well as order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the inquiry committee for reference to the DEO.

5. We may notice at this stage that when such order was passed, the appellant-petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation and she was 69 years of age. The issue of remand was relating to the provisions of Regulation 27A(6)(5)(10)(1) and(2) of the Code of Conduct introduced vide resolution dated 20.05.1992, which pertains to completion of inquiry within stipulated period of 150 days. Thus, after the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, the matter was remanded. The DEO passed a fresh order, after examining Rojkam and the facts, on 30.12.2014, wherein it was held that the departmental proceedings were held within a period of 150 days. The said order dated 30.12.2014 passed by the DEO, pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, was assailed by the appellant in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application Special Civil Application No. 19162 of 2015. By the order dated 10.01.2017, the learned Single Judge again remanded the matter to the DEO by observing that he ought to have examined the matter as directed earlier by the learn