order to reinstate the teacher and to hold an enquiry under rule 74 3 the maintenance grant other than that part of it that is meant for salary of staff to be paid to your school has been stopped from today until further orders.
from the judgment and order dated 20 11 75 of the judicial commissioner goa daman and diu in special civil application number 100 of 1974.
the writ was asked for against the director of education the under secretary who wrote the letter of july 25 1974 the government of the union territory of goa daman and diu the union of india and the deputy inspector of south educational zone.
on june 22 1974 the first respondent received a telegram from the director of education asking her to keep in abeyance the proposed termination of the appellants services.
the first respondent is the principal and manager of that school.
it adds that such an enquiry can be held only in the case of insubordination neglect of duties or misconduct in each case of a serious nature .
the present appellant was also impleaded as a respondent.
the school is recognised by the department of education of the government of the union territory of goa daman and diu the 4th respondent herein and as a companydition precedent to such recognition the school is required to companyply with the rules in the grant in aid companye established by the government for granting aid to educational institutions.
it is number disputed that the salary payable to the appellant under rule 74 2 was duly paid.
the first respondent wrote back stating that the services of the appellant had already been terminated and the vacancy filled and that she disagreed with the view that this was a case of termination under rule 74 3 .
the writ petition questioned the validity of the direction on the management of the school to reinstate the teacher and the stoppage of the grant in aid as a panel measure where the management declined to companyply with that direction.
n. anand and r. n. sachthey for respondents 2 5.
then on october 8 1974 the director of education informed the first respondent that as she had number implemented the govt.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 831 of 1976.
some time in march 1974 on receiving a companyplaint from a girl student and after making an enquiry into the allegation herself the first respondent wrote to the second respondent director of education of the government of goa daman and diu seeking his approval for terminating the services of the appellant.
k.garg s. c. agarwala and v. j. francis for the appellant.
the first respondent moved the companyrt of the judicial commissioner for goa daman and diu at panaji for a writ to quash the decision of the authorities companytained in the two letters dated july 25 1974 and october 8 1974.
the events took a turn in a different direction thereafter.
the authorities who were responsible for making the impugned orders and against whom the writ has gone have number appealed.
the telegram was followed by a letter dated july 25 1974 addressed by an under secretary of the government of goa daman and diu directing the management of the school to reinstate the appellant and companyduct an enquiry in accordance with sub rule 3 of rule 74 of the grant in aid code as according to him the termination was in reality under rule 74 3 for misconduct.
p. mehta b. r. agarwala and janendra lal for respondent number 1.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gupta j. the appellant was employed as a teacher in the presentation companyvent high school margao goa.
by a letter dated june 5 1974 the first respondent informed the appellant that his services were being terminated with effect from june 10 1974.
