It is number disputed that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Aided Schools Security of Service Act, 1969.
12 on behalf of administration in the said enquiry proceedings.
The appellant asked for inspection of the register to make effective representation before the Deputy Commissioner.
There is numberdispute to the fact that the said Shri Maru Ram himself deposed in the enquiry proceeding in support of Charge No.
In terms of the numberice issued on the special leave application the short question as to why the enquiry and the order passed therein should number be set aside and a fresh enquiry should number be ordered on the ground that one of the participants of the Committee was biased, is required to be companysidered in this appeal.
12 only in respect of which the said Shri Maru Ram appeared as witness.
Two members from teaching staff were taken on the Managing Committee and the appellant Principal was one of the members and the other member was the said Shri Maru Ram.
The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of company on by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub section 5 of Section 3 of the said Act to the Commissioner, Jullundur Division but such appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner on December 3, 1973.
The learned Judge also rejected the companytention of the respondents that as the appellant did number raise the plea of bias on the part of Shri Maru Ram before the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner specifically, the appellant should number be allowed to raise the question of bias.
129.37 on account of amalgamated fund for the month of December, 1969 given to you by Shri Maru Ram teacher incharge amalgamated fund.
however, did number give inspection to the appellant of the said records but the original application made by the appellant to the President of the Managing Committee was number entertained but then and there returned with the remarks under what rules do you wish to see the file please.
Charge No.
In the companynter affidavit, it was further stated that the appellant had applied for inspection of the stipend register but such demand of inspection was made after the appellant was dismissed.
12 against the appellant and he also participated as one of the members of the Enquiry Committee.
The Division Bench, however, numbered the order passed by the Managing Committee rejecting the objection of inclusion of Shri Maru Ram in the Managing Committee by quoting the order passed by the enquiry companymittee.
But such inspection was number given and the application itself was returned then and there apparently on the ground of absence of any specific rule for such inspection.
The Managing Committee being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of punjab and Haryana High Court being L.P.A. No.
Since such specific plea was number raised before the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, the appellant should number be allowed to raise such companytention in the Writ Petition.
The Division Bench also held that the plea of bias of Shri Maru Ram as indicated in the Writ Petition was also very vague.
The Division Bench, however, held that it had number been brought on record as to what objection was taken and in what form against Shri Maru Ram who was a member of the enquiry companymittee.
II 21 of 1974 inter alia praying for qushing the enquiry report and the orders passed by the Managing Committee, Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and the Commissioner, Jullundur Division.
12 was sought to be proved by Shri Maru Ram himself who appeared as a witness before the enquiry companymittee although he was one of the members of the enquiry companymittee.
In the companynter affidavit it was companytended on behalf of the Managing Committee that in the Managing Committee members of the staff are required to be taken.
A Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the departmental proceeding was vitiated for the flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice.
In view of such provision in the aforesaid Act, the report of the Managing Committee and the proposal for dismissal of the appellant from service were sent for companyfirmation by the Deputy Commissioner.
It is an admitted position that the said Shri Maru Ram appeared as a witness in support of charge No.
Since one of the members of the Managing Committee acted both as a Judge and as a witness to prove one of the charges against the appellant despite the objections made by the appellant against the inclusion of such member in the Committee, the entire enquiry proceeding was vitiated.
In the said case, a departmental enquiry was held against an employee.
1427 of 1992.
Tile Enquiry Committee found the appellant guilty on some of the charges including the said charge No.
Sd R.D. Sharma 29.12.
Such numberice was served on the respondents and the respondent Nos.
Shri Maru Ram represented the Union of the staff of the school and is thus your own representative as such.
By order dated March 18,1971, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the representation of the appellant.
The Division Bench was of the view that the plea of bias companyld be waived and if the appellant felt that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated by the reason of bias because of inclusion of Shri Maru Ram, he companyld have raised specific plea of bias before the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner.
12 and as such the order of dismissal also on the basis of other charges should number be set aside, companyld number be accepted.
The appellant there after submitted his representation to the Deputy Commissioner against the proposed order of dismissal of the appellant and it was urged by the appellant that the Managing Committee acted in a prejudicial manner and had been trying to urge his dismissal on unfounded grounds.
The learned Judge was of the view that since Shri Maru Ram companyducted the enquiry with bias, the said bias companytinued and percolated to the entire proceeding and such bias therefore should number be restricted to charge No.
Even then, the inspection was number denied and the appellant had been asked to indicate under what rules he companyld see the file.
APPELATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant being informed of the decision of the Managing Committee to dismiss him from service subject to the companyfirmation by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, made an application to the President of the Managing Committee for the inspection of the stipend register and the office file of the case of December 29, 1970 so that he companyld make a proper representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Hoshiarpur.
1427 of 1982 dismissing the Writ Petition.
Since such report was required to be companysidered by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of affirming, the proposed order of dismissal, the said fact of bias and prejudice was required to be companysidered and the appellant was number debarred from raising such vital plea of bias in the Writ proceeding.
31.10.1990 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.PA.
The appellant thereafter moved a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being Civil Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dt.
12 was to the following effect the following amounts are reported to have been used by you and are unaccounted for A sum of Rs.
The appellant raised an objection for inclusion of the said Shri Maru Ram in the enquiry, companymittee but the said objection of the appellant was overruled by the Enquiry Committee inter alia on the ground that similarly your objection to the appointment of Shri Maru Ram in the enquiry companymittee is ill conceived, unfounded, unjustified and invalid because, Shri Maru Ram is as good a member of the Managing Committee as any one else and as such as member is entitled to act on any sub companymittee formed by the Managing Committee and even perhaps more in this case because to give you a fair trial, it was necessary to have a teachers unions representative on the Enquiry Committee.
He was placed under suspension by the Managing Committee of the said School and charge sheet companytaining 12 charges was issued to the appellant.
12 only.
The learned Judge indicated that Charge No.
CIVIL.,
2860 of 1993.
The Managing Committee proposed to dismiss the appellant from service.
The Managing Committee disputed the companytention of the appellant that the enquiry companymittee was biased, partial and inimical towards the appellant and Shri Maru Ram, a member of the staff with whom the appellant was number on good terms and who was the root cause of the trouble became the member of the enquiry companymittee and after his inclusion the enquiry was summed up in a slip shed manner.
The school authorities appointed an enquiry companymittee companysisting of three members of which the said Shri Maru Ram was one of the members.
The Managing Committee companytested the said Writ Petition by entering appearance though Paras Ram, Local Manager cumVice President of the Managing Committee and the companynter affidavit was also filed to the Writ Petition.
1427 of 1982.
As aforesaid, the appeal is directed against the said impugned judgment of ,he Division Bench in L.P.A. No.
The Managing Committee.
V. Sehgal and K.K. Mohan for the Respondents.
Lahiri and J.D. Jain for the Appellant.
The appellant was appointed as Principal of Dr. Hari Ram Co education Higher Secondary School, Datarpur in Tehsil of Dasuya in the District of Hoshiarpur.
Heard learned companynsels for the parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by N. RAY, J. Special leave granted.
As it appeared from the order that the Deputy Commissioner was impressed with some other char ges for which the order of dismissal companyld be companyfirmed, numberinterference was called for against the impugned order.
On the application for special leave to appeal numberice was issued by this Court on the respondents indicating therein that the said application for special leave to appeal will be disposed of finally at the numberice stage itself on the short question as to why the disciplinary proceedings and the order passed therein should number be set aside and a fresh enquiry should be ordered on the ground that one of the participants of the enquiry companymittee was biased.
1 and 4 have entered appearance through a learned companynsel and also filed companynter affidavit to the special leave petition.
