9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On this vital ground, we deem it just and proper to grant special leave and accordingly special leave is granted. The facts of the case in brief are, inter alia, that the petitioner, a B. Sc. with 2nd Class honours, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1951 in the New English Institute Girls High School, conducted and managed by registered society named New Education Institute, the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was transferred to New High School in June, 1953. The petitioner passed the Secondary Teacher's Certificate Examination and he also passed the Diploma of Education Examination conducted by Basic Training Centre, Dhule. This diploma is considered as equivalent to Bachelor of Education Degree for the purpose of considering suitability for additional benefits. 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 committee of the Institute dated 28th October, 1973. The petitioner challenged the said resolution of reversion in a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 755 of 1973. The said suit was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the said de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Enquiry Committee regarding the termination of the service of the petitioner had to be upheld. The petitioner, thereafter, challenged the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 1837 of 1980 before the High Court of judicature at Bombay. On 12th August, 1980, the writ petition was rejected by merely recording the order, "rejected". No reasons whatsoever were recorded which impelled the Court to reject the petition. The petitioner, thereafter, brought an action being Civil Suit No. 199 of 1981 in the Court of Civil judge, Senior Division, Nasik, which is pending for hearing. During the pendency of these proceedings, the management again commenced an enquiry under the provisions of clause 77.3 of the Secondary Schools Code. This enquiry was completed without any compliance of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not served with the charge-sheet by the Enquiry Committee nor was his nominee, one Mr. R. G. Kunte, a teacher, allowed to participate in the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee. It was also alleged that out of 75 documents which the petitioner demanded inspection of only 25 documents were given inspection and the Enquiry Committee merely su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Secondary Schools Code. Daring the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, it was further pleaded that the enquiry committee while proceeding with the enquiry arbitrarily violated the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of clause 77.3 of the said Code. The Headmaster who was biased against the petitioner was appointed as one of the members of the Enquiry Committee and he did not permit the petitioner's nominee to be present in the enquiry which was held ex parte. The petitioner was asked by the opposite party No. 1, the New Education Institute, by its letter dated 15th January, 1979, to nominate his representative. The petitioner by his letter dated 29th January, 1979, enquired of the management whether his nominee should be a Headmaster or an Assistant Teacher or a member of the Governing Council as the charges related to his actions as Headmaster as well as Assistant Teacher. No reply was received by the petitioner to this letter; on the other hand, an intimation was received by him on 28th February, 1979, about the formation of the Enquiry Committee. Immediately, he nominated Mr. R. G. Kunte as his nominee in the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord reasons while disposing of a writ petition in order to enable the litigants, more particularly the aggrieved party, to know the reasons which weighed with the mind of the Court in determining the questions of facts and law raised in the writ petition or in the action brought. This is imperative for the fair and equitable administration of justice. More so when there is a statutory provision for appeal to the higher court in the hierarchy of courts in order to enable the superior court or the appellate court to know or to be apprised of the reasons which impelled the court to pass the order in question. This recording of reasons in deciding cases or applications affecting rights of parties is also a mandatory requirement to be fulfilled in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is no answer at all to this legal position that for the purpose of expeditious disposal of cases laconic order like " dismissed" or " rejected " will be made without passing a reasoned order or a speaking order. It is not, however, necessary that the order disposing of a writ petition or of a cause must be a lengthy one recording in detail all the reasons that played in the mind of the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction with the cancellation of the licence of a wholesale distributor in sugar under the U.P. Sugar Dealer's Licensing Order, 1962, by the District Magistrate and the rejection of the appeal by the State Government without recording any reasons. The above decision has been relied upon in the case of Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lal [1975] 48 FJR 5, where it has been observed that the practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against an order which seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of rule of law. The same view was also reiterated in Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 and Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1355 at 1358, and it was observed that where an authority made an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it made. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Rangnath v. Daulatrao [1975] 1 SCC 686 at p. 690. Every quasijudicial order must be supported by reasons. This well-settled principle will undoubtedly apply to orders made by a court in disposing of writ applications. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
