9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of reinstatement after adjusting the amount already paid. When this order was received by the Managing Committee it was obeyed so far as the reinstatement of the appellant is con- cerned but the Managing Committee requested the President of the Board of Secondary Education "to review the whole matter especially with regard to the payments for the period of suspension". The President by his order dated February 25, 1961, reviewed the matter and modified his earlier order made on appeal by providing that the appellant would be entitled only to subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. That decision was conveyed by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education to the District Education Officer in letter no. 2799-100-1 dated February 25, 1961 which reads :- "With reference to your letter No. 957, dated 29th July, 1960, I have, under orders of the President to say that you direct the Managing Committee of the Araria High School, to treat the period during which Shri Sayeed-ur-Rahman remained off duty, as period of suspension and pay him subsistence allowance according to the rules." It is not disputed before us that this order was made witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he subsequent order of the President dated January 18, 1964 modifying the earlier order of April 22, 1960 was held invalid on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant. This question, in the opinion of the High Court, had become some- what academic because the appellant could not get any relief in that writ petition. Before us on behalf of the appellant it was strenuously con- tended that the appellant had approached the High Court with his grievance only against the order made by the President of the Board reviewing his earlier order dated April 22, 1960 without hearing the appellant and that being the only relief claimed by him, if the said order of review was unconstitutional having been made to the appellant's prejudice without affording him an adequate opportunity of being heard then the High Court could not decline him the relief of declaring it to be invalid, on the sole ground that the earlier order (which was not challenged by the petitioner in those proceedings and had not been got quashed by the Managing Committee in any appropriate proceedings) being 'contrary to law on the basis of Liladhar Jha (supra), it would be somewhat academic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a fortnight from the date of suspension order, for which a clear seven days' notice shall be given to every member. Such meetings should have a quorum of two-third of the total number of members (that is, eight members). If the teacher member or the Headmaster himself is involved, he shall not attend the meeting. Orders of discharge or dismissal shall be valid only if they have been passed by the Managing Committee. In no case, however, shall a teacher be kept, under suspension for a period exceeding 30 days or in case he, has filed an appeal up to two months or till the disposal of his appeal. (2) During the period of suspension the teacher shall be allowed to draw half his salary plus dearness allowance and upon exoneration, the balance shall be paid to him." On behalf of the respondents Shri S. C. Agarwal appearing for the State of Bihar and the Board of Secondary Education, did not challenge the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Liladhar Jha (supra). He tried to justify the impugned order only on the reasons stated by the High Court. In our opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case it was incumbent on the High Court to declare as inva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request of the Managing Committee of Arari Higher Secondary School for re-considering the order of April 22, 1960. If the Board deems it proper to reconsider that order then the appellant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and of adequately representing his case. Rule 16 provides for appeal from the orders made under r. 15, and r. 17 provides for hearing the appellant and the Secretary of the Managing Committee. Rule 17 reads "17. The appeal of the person concerned shall be heard by the President of the Board of Secondary Education or any member of the Board of Secondary Education duly nominated by the President or any officer ordinarily not below the rank of Inspector of Schools. The appellant the Secretary of the Managing Committee may be heard in person by the President, Board of Secondary Education or his nominee who may even authorise them to be represented by a representative." This rule embodies the principle of natural justice requiring the appellate authority to hear the parties. The order dated April 22, 1960 must have, therefore, beer. made after hearing both sides as provided by this rule. There is no express provision for review in the rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
