Back
A. S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT
SADHANA VIDYA MANDAL BHARUCH – Appellant
Versus
VISHNUSHANKAR NAGINDAS BHATT – Respondent
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 Assi
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.
Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the dismissal order of the respondent No.1 in view of the charges, which were proved against him.
Termination of service without inquiry and prior approval violates statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
The court affirmed that the disciplinary authority's decision, supported by a fair inquiry process, is not subject to re-evaluation by the court unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
The court established that the 45-day decision period in Section 36(2) is mandatory, and failure to comply results in deemed approval of dismissal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of an employee's resignation within a specified period is mandatory under Rule 114A of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, ....
Unauthorized absence from duty without prior permission or timely communication justifies dismissal under applicable regulations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
