The constitution of an enquiry committee to investigate charges against a teacher must be in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.

JUDGMENT :

B.L. Hansaria, C.J. - The facts which need be noted for disposal of the case are these while the Petitioner was serving as a graduate teacher in K.N. Janata High School, Sajanapara some allegations, such as, absence without intimation, negligence in duty violation of the rules of the school insubordination and indulging in indisciplined activities were made against him. This was some time in August, 1978. The Petitioner Submitted his explanation denying the allegations. He Was thereafter placed under Suspension on 14-2-1979 pending inquiry into the charges drawn up against him. The Managing Committee thereafter Constituted an enquiry committee to enquire into the Charges framed against the Petitioner. This inquiry committee consisted of one member of the Managing Committee and two 'Outsiders. The Petitioner raised objection regarding, constitution of the enquiry 'Committee and did not participate in the deliberations of the Committee. The enquiry was, therefore, conducted ex parte and a report was submitted to the Managing Committee which was considered by it OR 29-9-1979 and it resolved, on the basis of the findings arrived at by the enquiry committee, to recommend removal of the Petitioner from service from 1-10-1979. The advice of the Director of Secondary" Education was sought in the matter as required by Rule 22(12) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members and Staff of Aided - Educational Institutions Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Rules' ). This letter of the Managing Committee dated 12-10-1979 was replied by the Director vide his Memo No. 9338 dated 23-2-1983 desiring fresh enquiry as the enquiry committee consisted of two outsiders. There was some exchange of correspondence between the, Managing Committee and the Director thereafter" which resulted in the letter of the Deputy Director No. 9727 dated 4-4-1984 requesting the Managing Committee to appoint an Enquiry Officer after observing the procedure as provided under Rule 22(4) of the Rules. The Managing Committee, however took the stand that there was no defect in the enquiry which had been conducted by the committee appointed by it about which reference has been made earlier.

2. On the aforesaid fads, the only question which really calls for determination is whether the enquiry in the case at hand by the committee as constituted by the Managing Committee was in accordance with law or not. A reply to this question' has to be found in Rule 22(4) of this Rules which at the relevant time read as below:

22. (4). On receipt of the written statement of defence, of if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself make enquiry into such of the charges as are not admitted, or, if he considers necessary so to do, appoint any other person who shall either be a member of the Governing Body or the Headmaster or the Principal;

x x x x

Before we advert to the submissions made by Dr. Dash relating to the legality of the constitution of the enquiry committee, it may be pointed out that there is no dispute that is the present case it is the Managing Committee of the school who has to be regarded as the disciplinary authority in view of what has been stated in Rule 21(2)(b) of the Rules. It is only in respect of lower grade employee that the Headmaster or the Principal can be regarded as the disciplinary authority. Dr. Dash submits that as the school had no Headmaster at the relevant time, the question of any enquiry by the Headmaster could not arise in the present case. This being so, it is the Managing Committee alone which could have made the enquiry; in view of what has been stated in Rule 22(4). Dr. Dash submits that in the enquiry committee as constituted in the present case, there was in fact one member of the Managing Committee and so the enquiry must be regarded to have been held by the Managing Committee which was the disciplinary authority in the present case; and induc