9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1306 - SC - Indian LawsDismissing the LPA on the ground as not maintainable - Held that - The Appellant instituted a proceeding before the tribunal to challenge an order of dismissal passed against him in disciplinary proceedings. Before the tribunal, the legality of the order of dismissal was in question. The lawfulness of the punishment imposed upon the Appellant was a matter for the employer to defend against a challenge of illegality in the Special Civil Application. The tribunal was not required to defend its order in the writ proceedings before the learned Single Judge. Even if the High Court was to require the production of the record before the tribunal, there was no necessity of impleading the tribunal as a party to the proceedings. The tribunal not being required in law to defend its own order, the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were maintainable without the tribunal being impleaded. For these reasons, we hold that the High Court was in error in dismissing the LPA on the ground that it was not maintainable. Consequently, the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 28 March 2014 is set aside and LPA 86 of 2014 is restored before the High Court for disposal on merits.
Issues:
1. Maintainability of a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution without impleading the court or tribunal whose order is challenged. 2. Whether a tribunal is a necessary party in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 3. Jurisdiction and role of the tribunal in deciding disputes related to dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of school staff under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972. Issue 1: Maintainability of Special Civil Application: The case involved an Assistant Teacher challenging his dismissal through a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing a previous judgment that such applications are not maintainable if the court or tribunal whose order is challenged is not impleaded. However, the Supreme Court clarified that impleading the tribunal is not necessary as long as it is not required to defend its own order in the proceedings. Issue 2: Tribunal as a Necessary Party: The Supreme Court analyzed the necessity of impleading the tribunal as a party in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227. Referring to previous judgments, the Court stated that tribunals or authorities required to defend their orders are necessary parties. In this case, the tribunal was not required to defend its order when the dismissal was challenged before the High Court, making it unnecessary to implead the tribunal as a party. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972: The Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 empowers a tribunal to decide disputes related to school staff members' dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank. The tribunal acts as both an original and appellate adjudicating forum. The Court clarified that the tribunal's role is to decide disputes between the management and staff members, and it is not required to defend its orders when challenged in a Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal based on maintainability grounds. The Court emphasized that the tribunal's presence as a party was not necessary in the Special Civil Application. The case was restored before the High Court for disposal on merits, with a request for expeditious proceedings due to the prolonged nature of the disciplinary proceedings. All rights and contentions of the parties on merits were left open for decision by the High Court.
|
