The court established that compliance with procedural requirements under the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal Act is essential for valid dismissal of a teacher.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in the captioned writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.03.2000 passed by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Schools Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad (in short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. 5 of 1995 with Application No. 111 of 1995 and the order dated 10.04.2001 passed in Review Application No. 74 of 2000.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The respondent No. 1-Mr. Vishnushankar Nagindas Bhatt, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Secondary School) at K.K. Vidyalaya, Kanod, Panchmahal on 15.06.1970. Thereafter, he served as an Assistant Teacher at Bharti Vidyamandir, Bharuch on 17.06.1974 and finally, he served as an Assistant Teacher (Secondary School) on 10.08.1977 at Sadhna Vidyalaya, Bharuch run by the original respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. the present appellants.

4. While the respondent No. 1 was serving as an Assistant Teacher, and on 14.09.1994, an First Information Report (for short “FIR”) being C.R. No. II-364 of 1994 was registered against him before the Bharuch City “A” Division Police Station, Bharuch for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 426 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, “the IPC”), inter alia alleging that on 14.09.1994, the respondent No. 1 barged into the chamber of Principal and assaulted the Principal, in presence of other witnesses and accordingly, he received certain injuries. Subsequently, by the judgment and order dated 14.07.1998, the respondent No. 1 came to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

5. It appears that on the basis of the said FIR, an explanation was sought from the respondent No. 1 and accordingly, the Trust decided to initiate a departmental inquiry to the incident along with other charges. The departmental inquiry was conducted for 11 charges. The Inquiry Committee submitted its report dated 25.03.1995, proving 11 charges levelled against him. As a consequence thereof, by the order dated 21.06.1995, the respondent No. 1 informed that he was dismissed from service as an Assistant Teacher. This was resolved in the meeting dated 16.06.1995 by the Trustees of the Trust. An approval for dismissing him from service was sought from the competent state authority. The respondent was dismissed from service by treating the dismissal order as deemed to have been approved by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) (3) of the Gujarat Higher Secondary School Services Tribunal Act, 1983 (in short “the Act”). The said provision stipulates “deemed approval” of the dismissal order, in case, the Competent Authority does not respond to the approval sought by the Management for dismissing a teacher from the service within a period of 45 days.

6. The respondent No. 1 assailed the action of deemed approval, which is incorporated in the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, by filing an Appeal No. 5 of 1995 before the Tribunal. Along with the said action of deemed approval, the respondent No. 1 also challenged the dismissal order dated 21.06.1995. By the judgment and order dated 23.03.2000, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the respondent No. 1. Subsequently, a Review Application No. 74 of 2000 was also filed and the same was also rejected vide order dated 10.04.2001, which was ultimately assailed in the captioned writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, while setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-TRUST:

7. Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara, appearing for the appellants, at the outset, has submitted that the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition