Ram Baran Thakur. Vs. The managing Committe Of G.A.M.H.S. School, Hajipur & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1405 of 1973.
Petitioner: Ram Baran Thakur.
Respondent: The managing Committe Of G.A.M.H.S. School, Hajipur & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1405 of 1973.
Judges: M.P.THAKKAR & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 20, 1987
Head Note:
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE:
Constitution of India, 1950; Articles 133(1)(c), 226 and 227 – Principal of school, who was not confirmed, dismissed from service on charges of misconduct – Whether he can prefer an appeal to the President of the Board of Secondary Education – Order of dismissal casts a stigma and the appellant has a right of appeal as a teacher regardless of the fact whether he is yet to be confirmed or temporarily appointed.
Cases Reffered:
1.Kailash Choudhary v. President of the Board of Secondary Education., 1979 (XVIII) B.L.J.R. 341.
JUDGEMENT:
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
2. The appellant was at the material time holding the post of principal of a school. A charge sheet was served on him levelling certain charges of alleged misconduct. In pursuance of an inquiry the appellant was dismissed from the office of the principal of school by a resolution dated February 8, 1967 passed by the Managing Committee of the School (respondent No.1 herein). The appellant preferred an appeal to the President of the Board of Secondary Education. The President of the Board of Secondary Education after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal, and issued certain consequential directions to Respondent No.1, Managing Committee. This order passed by the president of the Board of Secondary Education was challenged before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the order of the President of the Board of Secondary Education on the ground that no appeal to him was competent having regard to the fact that the dismissed principal had not yet been confirmed. The question therefore is whether a principal of a school who has not yet been confirmed can prefer an appeal to the President of the Board of Secondary Education in the event of his being dismissed from service on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct which casts a stigma. It appears that this very question had come up before another Bench of the very same High Court in Kailash Choudhary v. President of the Board of Secondary Education 1979 (XVIII) B.L.J.R. 341, whenever the view has been taken that inasmuch as the termination of the services of the principal stemmed from a finding of guilt recorded against him in a departmental proceeding which casts a stigma he had a right of appeal as a teacher. For reaching this conclusion reliance was also placed on another decision of the very same High Court. We are of the opinion that the decision in Kailash Choudhary’s case (supra) reflects the correct position of law. Whether or not the principal was a confirmed principal or not is irrelevant inasmuch as under the rules, an appeal is provided against an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal casts a stigma on the teacher concerned regardless of the fact whether he was temporarily appointed to the post or whether he had yet not been confirmed in the post. An appeal is therefore competent under the relevant rule as rightly held in Kailash Choudhary’s case. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The order passed by the High Court must be set aside. The order dated 28-08-1968 passed by the President of the Board of Secondary Education will stand restored and will be given effect to.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
1. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.
2. The appellant was at the material time holding the post of principal of a school. A charge sheet was served on him levelling certain charges of alleged misconduct. In pursuance of an inquiry the appellant was dismissed from the office of the principal of school by a resolution dated February 8, 1967 passed by the Managing Committee of the School (respondent No.1 herein). The appellant preferred an appeal to the President of the Board of Secondary Education. The President of the Board of Secondary Education after hearing the parties allowed the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal, and issued certain consequential directions to Respondent No.1, Managing Committee. This order passed by the president of the Board of Secondary Education was challenged before the High Court by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court quashed the order of the President of the Board of Secondary Education on the ground that no appeal to him was competent having regard to the fact that the dismissed principal had not yet been confirmed. The question therefore is whether a principal of a school who has not yet been confirmed can prefer an appeal to the President of the Board of Secondary Education in the event of his being dismissed from service on the ground that he was guilty of misconduct which casts a stigma. It appears that this very question had come up before another Bench of the very same High Court in Kailash Choudhary v. President of the Board of Secondary Education 1979 (XVIII) B.L.J.R. 341, whenever the view has been taken that inasmuch as the termination of the services of the principal stemmed from a finding of guilt recorded against him in a departmental proceeding which casts a stigma he had a right of appeal as a teacher. For reaching this conclusion reliance was also placed on another decision of the very same High Court. We are of the opinion that the decision in Kailash Choudhary’s case (supra) reflects the correct position of law. Whether or not the principal was a confirmed principal or not is irrelevant inasmuch as under the rules, an appeal is provided against an order of dismissal. The order of dismissal casts a stigma on the teacher concerned regardless of the fact whether he was temporarily appointed to the post or whether he had yet not been confirmed in the post. An appeal is therefore competent under the relevant rule as rightly held in Kailash Choudhary’s case. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The order passed by the High Court must be set aside. The order dated 28-08-1968 passed by the President of the Board of Secondary Education will stand restored and will be given effect to.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
