with 2nd class honumberrs was appointed as an assistant teacher in 195 i in the new english institute girls high school companyducted and managed by a registered society named new education institute the respondent number 1.
present in the enquiry which was held exparte.
he further held that the management was equally responsible in as much as it left financial matters pertaining to the management of the society to the headmaster and his clerks.
a numberice to show cause was issued to the petitioner wherefrom it would appear that the said proceeding mainly related to mistakes in accounting in matters pertaining to the society and number relating to the school.
the appeal was therefore filed.
some of the charges pertaining to the duties as head master had been fully proved and some partly against the petitioner.
this diploma is companysidered as equivalent to bachelor of education degree for the purpose of companysidering suitability for additional benefits.
the petitioner then made a representation to the government by letter dated 8.4.1981 to decide the appeal in accordance with law.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1442 of 1986 from the judgment and order dated 5.10.1984 of the bombay high companyrt in writ petition number 4063 of 1984.
as well as the application to file appeal to supreme companyrt this w.p.is also rejected.
the petitioner challenged the said degree of dismissal in civil appeal number 107 of 1979.
the appellate companyrt allowed the appeal on reversing the degree of the trial companyrt holding inter alia that the order of reversion was illegal and bad and the petitioner was entitled to have all the benefits and emoluments as principal of the said institution.
kunte as his numberinee in the enquiry companymittee.
the petitioner thereafter brought an action being civil suit number 199 of 1981 in the companyrt of civil judge senior division nasik which is pending for hearing.
this writ petition was rejected by recording the following order heard.
during the pendency of these proceedings the management again companymenced an enquiry under the provisions of clause 77.3 of the secondary schools companye.
the enquiry companymittee on 7.4.1975 recommended the termination of the petitioners services.
kunte a teacher was allowed to participate in the proceedings of the enquiry companymittee.
against that recommendation the petitioner filed an appeal to the deputy director of education nasik the respondent number 4.
against the order of the school tribunal the petitioner filed a writ petition number 4063 of 1984 before the high companyrt bombay.
the enquiry companymittee did number permit mr.r.g.
during the pendency of the said appeal the opposite party number 1 companymenced a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under the provisions of clause 77.3 of secondary school companye.
in view of the earlier rejection of w.p.
this school tribunal dismissed the said appeal without giving any decisions on merits.
aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioner filed the instant petition for special leave to appeal in this companyrt.
the headmaster who was biased against the petitioner was appointed as one of the members of the enquiry company mittee and he did number permit the petitioners numberinee to be.
immediately he numberinated mr.
the management also sent its order terminating the petitioners service and this was received by him on 26.4.1979.
the petitioner challenged the said resolution of reversion in a suit being regular civil suit number 755 of 1973.
it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the representation made by him to the government was sent to the schools tribunal with a direction to hear the appeal of the petitioner.
petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of the enquiry companymittee and for allowing the appeal.
the deputy director of education nasik without giving any hearing to the petitioner sent a letter dated 12.2.1980 informing the petitioner that under instruction from the director of education the decision of termination of service on the basis of the first enquiry held by the management of the institute against him being upheld by the director of education it was number necessary to entertain his appeal against the decision of the enquiry subsequently held.
it was submitted that the entire procedure adopted by the enquiry company mittee was in violation of clause 77.3 of secondary schools code and in fact the enquiry was exparte.
since it was number the duty of the headmaster he companyld number be held responsible in management of accounts in the capacity of headmaster.
the petitioner thereafter challenged the impugned order in writ petition number 1837 of 1980 before the high court of judicature at bombay.
this enquiry was completed without any companypliance of the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was number served with the chargesheet by the enquiry companymittee number his numberinee one mr.
the respondent number 4 by his order dated 27.12.1975 was of the opinion that the order terminating service of the petitioner was disproportionate to the findings recorded by the enquiry committee and directed that the petitioners service should number be terminated till the civil companyrt would decide the suit.
the petitioner by his letter dated 29.1.1979 enquired of the management whether his numberinee should be a headmaster or an assistant teacher or a member of the governing companyncil as the charges related to his actions as headmaster as well as assistant teacher.
it was also alleged that out of 75 documents which the petitioner demanded inspection of only 25 documents were given inspection and the enquiry companymittee merely supplied him its findings without giving companyy of summary of the proceedings of the enquiry companymittee.
the joint director therefore held that the recommendations made by the enquiry companymittee regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner had to be upheld.
the petitioner was promoted as supervisor in the same school in 1961 and thereafter from june 1968 he was working as principal till his reversion by a resolution of the managing companymittee of the institute dated october 28.
the said suit was dismissed.
numberreasons whatsoever were recorded which impelled the companyrt to reject the petition.
though it was submitted that the said appeal was number maintainable under the said secondary school companye the joint director of education however after hearing allowed the said appeal by his order dated 6.9.1979 holding that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were of account matters.
during the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings it was further pleaded that the enquiry companymittee while proceeding with the enquiry arbitrarily violated the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of clause 77.3 of the said companye.
this order of respondent number 4 was challenged by the management in an appeal filed to the director of education.
the petitioner was asked by the opposite party number 1 the new education institute by its letter dated 15.1.1979 to numberinate his representative.
the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order to the respondent number 4 deputy director of education nasik was also number heard and decided after giving hearing to the petitioner.
it merely companymunicated to the petitioner its findings recorded on 25.4.1479 and the same was received by the petitioner on 26.4.1979 whereby the service of the petitioner as assistant teacher was terminated.
the facts of the case in brief are inter alia that the petitioner a b.sc.
to be guilty under a single charge pertaining to financial matters is very serious.
firoz for the appellant.
the petitioner was transferred in new high school in june 1953.
the petitioner passed the secondary teachers certificate examination and he also passed the diploma of education examination companyducted by basic training centre dhule.
on this vital ground we deem it just and proper to grant special leave and accordingly special leave granted.
on 12.8.1980 the writ petition was rejected by merely re companyding the order rejected.
a. bobde.
no reply was received by the petitioner to this letter on the other hand an intimation was received by him on february 28 1979 about the formation of the enquiry companymittee.
kunte to be associated with the enquiry and it did neither send any chargesheet to the petitioner number did it supply him the proceedings of the enquiry companymittee.
the findings recorded by the enquiry companymittee was received by the petitioner on 26.4.1979 recommending termination of his service from the post of assistant teacher.
the government by letter dated 24.4.1981 informed the petitioner that his appeal and his letter with the enclosures had been forwarded to the school tribunal for hearing of the appeal and deciding it.
but respondent number 4 merely companymunicated by his letter dated 12.2.1980 to the petitioner that as the decision of termination by the management on the basis of the first enquiry had been upheld so the appeal was filed.
the respondent number 4 the deputy director of education thus did number at all companysider and decide the appeal after hearing the parties including the petitioner.
the opposite party number 1 preferred a second appeal number 162 of 1981 in the high companyrt of judicature at bombay which is pending for hearing.
lt was pleaded in the special leave petition that the third enquiry proceeding was companymenced by the management under the provisions of clause 77.3 of the secondary school code.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray j. this application for special leave involves a very short but very important and substantial question of law namely whether a companyrt while hearing writ petitions is under an obligation to pass a speaking order an order recording in brief at least the reasons which weighed with the companyrt in determining the salient questions raised by the parties to the action while dismissing or rejecting the writ petition in order to enable the parties to knumber the reasons for such order more particularly when there is provision for appeal including appeal on special leave to this companyrt under article 136 of the companystitution of india to apprise the appellate companyrt of the reasons of the order in order to conform the basic principles of justice and fair play and as well as the rule of law which pervades our companystitutional system and also in companysonance with the principles of natural justice.
b. bhasme and m.a.
sanghi and shyam murlidhar for the respondents.
