Amar Kaur vs The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, A.C.J.—This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the order of dismissal of the Appellant, as upheld by the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab and the School Tribunal, Punjab under the provisions of the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service), Act, 1969 (for short, "the Act") and the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service), Rules, 1974.

The Appellant was appointed as a JBT teacher in Khalsa National Higher Secondary School, Ludhiana in the year 1972. The school is an aided school, to which the above Act and Rules are applicable. The Appellant was charge-sheeted for alleged misconduct of making false complaint of sexual harassment against the Principal. Her complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana had also been dismissed and the said order was upheld by the revisional Court. Her complaint was found to be ill-founded by Harbax Singh, Establishment Officer who conducted inquiry into the matter and also by Piara Singh, the then D.H.O., Ludhiana. Similar was the finding given by Shri M.L. Gotra, the then G.A. to Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana.

After the charges against her were proved, a copy of the inquiry report was sent to her alongwith the show cause notice and after consideration of reply of the Appellant, order dated 30.12.1980 was passed, dismissing the Appellant from service w.e.f. 31.12.1980.

Though in first round, the order of dismissal was not approved by the Director and the Commissioner, this Court vide judgment dated 23.2.1988 in Managing Committee of the Khalsa National Higher Secondary School, Shahpur Road, Ludhiana v. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Ors. 1988 (2) SLR 402 set aside the orders of the said authorities and remanded the matter for fresh decision.Thereafter, the order of dismissal was approved by the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), Punjab u/s 3(2) of the Act and by the Commissioner, acting as the appellate authority.The Director, Public Instructions (Schools) held as under:

...But I do not find any substance on the arguments of the learned Counsel of the Respondent that the Respondent had not been provided adequate opportunity to defend her case. Except enforcing its decision of dismissal hastily without getting it confirmed from the Deputy Commissioner, the Managing Committee observed the entire proceedings as laid down under the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1974 framed under the Punjab Aided Schools (Security of Service) Act, 1969 by serving proper charge-sheet, holding enquiry and service show cause notice. It is a different matter that the Respondent did not attend the proceedings of inquiry and the inquiry officer had to hold ex-parte inquiry....

...In this case as I have observed above, the Respondent was provided adequate opportunity of defence by the Managing Committee before passing the order of dismissal. Thus, I am left with No. power to refuse the order of dismissal passed by the Managing Committee which is the competent authority to dismiss its employees from service by observing the Provisions of the security of service Act and Rules framed there under. Obviously the order passed by the then Director to refuse the confirmation of order of dismissal was violative of the said provisions of the rules particularly when he had observed in his order dated May 14, 1982, that the procedure adopted by the Managing Committee for dismissing the teacher was valid procedure....

The appellate authority held as follows:

I have considered the arguments of counsel for both the parties and seen the record. The main point for consideration is whether the confirmation of the dismissal order should be effective from the date of proposal i.e. 31.12.1980 or not. The plea of the counsel for the Appellant that the confirmation was delayed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and Director is not at all tenable as the dispute continued between the parties due to their rival claims and prolonged litigation. For this the parties are themselves responsible. The Appellant while passing resolution on 30.12.1980 should have got confirmed this proposal. Moreso, there is No. weight in the argument of the counsel for the Appellant that the dismissal can be retrospective and there is No. case at all for confirmation. Accordingly, I agree that there is No. case for changing the date of dismissal.

Learned Single Judge considered the matter and held that there was No. illegality in the order of the Director, Public Instructions (Schools), as affirmed by the School Tribunal, in view of earlier order of this Court dated 23.2.1988.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the discussion in the order of learned Single Judge does not support the conclusion for upholding the order of the Director and the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge rejected the plea of the management that the order of dismissal is to be effective whenever passed and not from date of approval by competent authority but still failed to give relief to the Appellant. The order was passed by the management w.e.f. 31.12.1980 and was approved by the Director only on 1.2.1989. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge erred in holding that the inquiry was not vitiated by participation by the manager who finally passed the impugned order. Learned Single Judge held that under the constitution of the school, the power to pass order of dismissal was vested in the management. Learned Single Judge erred in holding that the earlier order dated 23.2.1988 in C.W.P. No. 5090 of 1983 was res judicata. Therein, this Court had not decided the issue finally but had merely set aside the order of the Director, declining to approve the order of termination and remanded the matter by a fresh decision. It was lastly submitted that certain wages prior to the date of dismissal are due which have not been paid to the Appellant.

We are unable to accept the submissions. In DB judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab CWP No. 17678 of 2006 decided on 17.9.2007, it has been held that principle of relation back will apply to approval of the order of dismissal by the Director. On merits, admittedly, inquiry was duly held, not only on the charge of false allegation of sexual harassment but also other charges mentioned in charge sheet dated 18.9.1980, Annexure P-5, which charges were held to have been proved after due opportunity to the Appellant to defend herself. Finding of learned Single Judge that the Manager was the competent authority to pass the order as per Constitution of the Society has not been shown to be erroneous. Such an order cannot be held to be vitiated by bias.

In view of above, No. ground is made out for interference. The appeal is dismissed.

As regards wages due prior to dismissal, we are of the view that scope of writ petition is only about the validity of approval granted by the Director. If the Appellant is entitled to any dues, this order will not debar the Appellant from claiming the same in accordance with law.