President, Local Governing Council Arts & Commerce College & Ors. Vs. Ayyappa Bharamappa Kadiwal & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3412 of 2000
Petitioner: President, Local Governing Council Arts & Commerce College & Ors.
Respondent: Ayyappa Bharamappa Kadiwal & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3412 of 2000
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & Y. K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 05, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Article 226 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – Termination of services of teacher and moderator – Misconduct proved – Guilt admitted – Interference by High Court on grounds of single instance. Held that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with orders of tribunal. Appeal allowed.
Constitution
Article 226 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – Termination of services of teacher and moderator – Misconduct proved – Guilt admitted – Interference by High Court on grounds of single instance. Held that High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with orders of tribunal. Appeal allowed.
Held:
In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the conclusions of an inferior tribunal if it comes to the conclusion that the tribunal either did not consider any material evidence or considers inadmissible evidence or that the conclusion is such, which cannot be arrived at by any reasonable man. Even if one of the charges is established, the Court would not be justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded. (Para 4)
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order passed by the management which was approved by the school tribunal. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by the president of the local governing council of the college is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench. The respondent was a teacher and was the moderator. It was revealed that he has misconducted himself while working as moderator in altering the marks of students and, therefore, a set of charges was framed against him. An inquiry committee constituted to look into the charges, submitted a report finally. On the basis of findings of the said report, the appropriate authority terminated the services of the respondent. The respondent assailed the same by approaching the school tribunal.
2. The school tribunal having dismissed the appeal, the respondent approached the High Court in a writ petition. By the impugned judgment, the High Court being of the opinion that there has been gross infirmity with the proceedings, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement and payment of back-wages to the extent of 50 percent. The management, therefore, is in appeal before us.
3. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the management, contends that in view of the findings of the inquiry committee and the order passed by the appropriate authority, particularly in the light of the admission of the respondent dated 13.06.1985, the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the order of punishment in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the delinquency of the respondent is such that it would cause grave injustice to the institution to allow such people to continue in service. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the charges in question being vague, the High Court was fully justified in not acting upon the so-called inquiry report and did rightly interfere with the order of termination passed by the authority and this Court too should not interfere with the said order of the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. From the statement of the respondent dated 13.06.1985, it is quite clear that he admitted his guilt and stated that he had done so under pressure and accepted the responsibility, but requested to be excused for the misconduct committed by him. Even if we accept the reasoning of the High Court that it relates to only one incident and not many, the single incident was sufficient for any appointing authority to terminate the services of the employee concerned, more so in an educational institution where the respondent was acting as a teacher and had been given the responsibility of moderator. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the conclusions of an inferior tribunal if it comes to the conclusion that the tribunal either did not consider any material evidence or considers inadmissible evidence or that the conclusion is such, which cannot be arrived at by any reasonable man. Even if one of the charges is established, the Court would not be justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order passed by the management which was approved by the school tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal accordingly.
1. This appeal by the president of the local governing council of the college is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench. The respondent was a teacher and was the moderator. It was revealed that he has misconducted himself while working as moderator in altering the marks of students and, therefore, a set of charges was framed against him. An inquiry committee constituted to look into the charges, submitted a report finally. On the basis of findings of the said report, the appropriate authority terminated the services of the respondent. The respondent assailed the same by approaching the school tribunal.
2. The school tribunal having dismissed the appeal, the respondent approached the High Court in a writ petition. By the impugned judgment, the High Court being of the opinion that there has been gross infirmity with the proceedings, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement and payment of back-wages to the extent of 50 percent. The management, therefore, is in appeal before us.
3. Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel appearing for the management, contends that in view of the findings of the inquiry committee and the order passed by the appropriate authority, particularly in the light of the admission of the respondent dated 13.06.1985, the High Court committed serious error in interfering with the order of punishment in exercise of its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further contends that the delinquency of the respondent is such that it would cause grave injustice to the institution to allow such people to continue in service. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the charges in question being vague, the High Court was fully justified in not acting upon the so-called inquiry report and did rightly interfere with the order of termination passed by the authority and this Court too should not interfere with the said order of the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. From the statement of the respondent dated 13.06.1985, it is quite clear that he admitted his guilt and stated that he had done so under pressure and accepted the responsibility, but requested to be excused for the misconduct committed by him. Even if we accept the reasoning of the High Court that it relates to only one incident and not many, the single incident was sufficient for any appointing authority to terminate the services of the employee concerned, more so in an educational institution where the respondent was acting as a teacher and had been given the responsibility of moderator. In exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court would be justified in interfering with the conclusions of an inferior tribunal if it comes to the conclusion that the tribunal either did not consider any material evidence or considers inadmissible evidence or that the conclusion is such, which cannot be arrived at by any reasonable man. Even if one of the charges is established, the Court would not be justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the order passed by the management which was approved by the school tribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal accordingly.
