Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, JJ.
Adarsh Shiksha Parishad Samti – Appellant
Versus
Gajanand Sharma S/o Shri Har Sahai Sharma – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1077 of 2005, 826 of 2011
Decided on : 06-05-2022
Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 - Section 18, (iii), 19, 2(b), (g) - Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Rules, 1993 - Rule 38(5)(d), 39 (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Services - Termination Order - Whether proviso (iii) of Section 18 of Act of 1989 is not applicable in case of respondent - Whether before terminating services of employee, Director’s approval is necessary or not – Whether requirement of section 18 is attracted even in case of unaided recognized education institutions – Held, Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand, reported in has held as Court is distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on subject, there is substantial increase in number of cases involving violation of basics of judicial discipline - Learned Single Judges and Benches of High Courts refuse to follow and accept verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in facts as ground for doing so - Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation - It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in last six decades and increase in frequency of conflicting judgments of superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to system inasmuch as courts at grass root will not be able to decide as to which of judgment lay down correct law and which one should be followed - Hence, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, Court see no reason to take a different view as controversy involved in this appeal has already been put to rest by Constitutional Bench of 11 Judges of Hon’ble Court in case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and three Judges Larger Bench of this Court in case of Central Academy Society (supra), that prior approval of Director of Education is not necessary before taking disciplinary action against employee of Unaided Recognized Educational Institution - Provisions contained under proviso (iii) of section 18 of Act of 1989 are not attracted in this case - Hence, findings recorded by learned Single Judge on this point is not sustainable - In view of above discussion, impugned judgment passed by Single Judge as well as impugned judgment passed by Tribunal is quashed and set aside and impugned termination – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
1. This special appeal No.1077/2005 has been submitted against the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2005 passed by Single Judge by which the writ petition submitted by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.8.2003 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has been rejected and the judgment passed by the tribunal has been upheld.
2. Earlier, this special appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 08.08.2017 and the judgment of the Single Judge was quashed and set aside and the termination order of the respondent was held to be valid and it was observed that if the respondent is agreeable to the offer of receipt of compensation of Rs.2 lacs then the same may be granted to him as compensation.
3. Against the judgment dated 8.8.2017, the respondent submitted Civil Appeal No.5144-5146/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was disposed of on 06.09.2021 with the following directions:-
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the pleadings, the main question before the Division Bench was whether before terminating the services of the appellant, the Director’s approval was necessary or not. Though the aforesaid was dealt with by the learned Single Judge in detail, the Division Bench, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has not at all considered the aforesaid fact.
Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench for fresh decision.
In view of the above, the present Appeals are allowed. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1077/2005 and D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.826/2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh decision of the aforesaid Special Appeals. The D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1077/2005 and D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.826/2011 are hereby ordered to be restored to the file of the High Court.
However, it is observed, we have not expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties and it is for the Division Bench to consider the same in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Considering the fact that the matter is very old, we request the Division Bench of the High Court to decide and dispose of the aforesaid Appeals at the earliest and, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the present order.”
4. The main issue involved in this appeal is “Whether before terminating the services of the employee, the Director’s approval is necessary or not ?”
5. The facts of the case are that respondent Gajanand Sharma (hereinafter referred as ‘the respondent’) was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (for short ‘L.D.C.’) by the appellant Managing Committee of Adarsh Siksha Parishad Saimiti vide order dated 23.06.1992. The allegation of the appellant that the respondent was indulged in grave misconduct and misappropriation of funds and he was also indulged in beating and abusing the Headmaster of the school.
6. Embezzlement was found in his cash-book when he was working as Cashier. The order sent by the Headmaster was torn by him. Hence, the respondent was placed under suspension vide order dated 02.12.1995. The respondent challenged his suspens
Prior approval from the Director of Education is mandatory for the termination of employees in recognized institutions, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to statutory provisions....
In case of termination of an employee of a recognized institution prior approval of Director of Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has to be obtained.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prior approval of the Director of Education is mandatory for the termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution under Sect....
Termination of an employee under the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act requires prior approval from the Director of Education, ensuring procedural safeguards are followed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of prior approval from the Director of Education for termination of an employee of a recognized private school, as provid....
Point of law: A departmental proceeding can continue so long as the employee is in service. In the event, a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer the employee cannot be made to reti....
Suspension orders without prior approval from the Director of Education lapse after 15 days, ensuring employee protection under the Delhi School Education Act.
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
