IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.

1. By way of present petition the petitioner herein invokes the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in Application No.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 on the ground that the impugned CAV judgment is without taking into consideration the record of the case, evidence adduced by the parties and without appreciating the grievance of the petitioner raised in the said application, praying for the following reliefs :-

“A. be pleased to admit and allow the petition;

B. be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the CAV Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application no. 388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003, the order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent-School Management Management and further be pleased to allow both the applications bearing no.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 with all the reliefs prayed therein;

C. be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the C.A.V. Judgment dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal in application no.388 of 1998 and 123 of 2003 and further be pleased to stay the order of dismissal dated 08.10.2002 passed by the respondent School Management, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

D. be pleased to direct the respondent-School Management to continue the petitioner in service as before and further be pleased to direct the respondent-School Management to protect all the legal rights of the petitioner, including the pay and pay-scales;

E. be pleased to pass such other and further orders which may deem fit in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner;”

2. Heard Mr. Dev Patel, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Neeraj Vasu, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Mamta Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :-

3.1 The petitioner is holding qualification of B.A., B.Ed. and came to be appointed in the respondent-School as Assistant Teacher for the first time on 4.6.1985. Prior to his joining the respondent-School, the petitioner had worked as Senior Clerk in the K.G. Sadhna Vinay Mandir, Paldi, Ahmedabad from 23.6.1975 to 3.6.1985.

3.2 On completion of ten years of service as teacher in the respondent-School, the petitioner came to be appointed as Head Master in the very school by order dated 6.10.1995. Upon appointed as Head Master, dispute arose between the petitioner and the Management and the petitioner was being harassed by the Management for the reasons best known to the respondent-School Management. The respondent-School Management dragged the petitioner in disputes and started finding faults with the petitioner.

3.3 The respondent-School Management was not allowing the petitioner to resume his duty with effect from 15.12.1997 and the petitioner was forced to be on leave by submitting the leave report and salaries of the petitioner were withheld on that ground from June, 1998 onwards.

3.4 The petitioner was forced to tender resignation on intimidation by the Directors of the respondent-School namely Shri Rajendra Patel and Shri L.G. Purohit.

3.5 The petitioner tendered first leave report because of the petitioner’s father’s ill health from 15.12.1997 to 24.1.1998. On completion of leave when the petitioner was to resume his duty on 27.1.1998, both the aforesaid Directors threatened the petitioner and compelled the petitioner to tender leave report from 27.1.1998 to 28.2.1998.

3.6 It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of this leave report, the petitioner went to report for duty on 2.3.1998, and has in fact joined his duty and signed the muster, however immediately the