GAJANAND SHARMA versus AADARSH SIKSHA PARISHAD SAMITI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 19-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
949
GAJANAND SHARMA
v.
AADARSH SIKSHA PARISHAD SAMITI & ORS.
Civil Appeal Nos.. 100-101 of 2023
JANUARY 19, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Rajasthan Non-Governmental Educational Institutions Act,
1989 – s.18 – For termination from service, the approval of Director
of Education required or not – Appellant-employee was terminated
after a departmental enquiry – Tribunal set aside the order of
termination by observing and holding that the prior approval of
the Director of Education as mandatory u/s. 18 of the Act, 1989
was not obtained – Single Judge confirmed the order passed by the
Tribunal – Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal
and has set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the
Single Judge and has upheld the order of termination – Division
Bench observed that in case of a termination after the disciplinary
enquiry/proceedings prior approval of the Director of Education is
not required – On appeal, held: On true interpretation of Section
18 of the Act, 1989, it is specifically observed and held that even in
case of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized
institution after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior
approval of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per
first proviso to s.18 of the Act, 1989 – The impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court restoring the
order of termination which as such was without obtaining the prior
approval of the Director of Education is set aside – The order of
Tribunal setting aside the order of termination confirmed by the
Single Judge of the High Court is restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The decision of this Court in the case of Raj
Kumar was binding upon the High Court. Therefore, the Division
Bench of the High Court has seriously erred in not following the
decision of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar. [Para 5.1][957-
B]
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 949
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
2. Even on fair reading of Section 18 of the Act, 1989, this
Court is of the opinion that in case of termination of an employee
of a recognized institution prior approval of the Director of
Education or an officer authorised by him in this behalf has to be
obtained. In Section 18, there is no distinction between the
termination, removal, or reduction in rank after the disciplinary
proceedings/enquiry or even without disciplinary proceedings/
enquiry. As per the settled position of law the provisions of the
statute are to be read as they are. Nothing to be added and or
taken away. The words used are “no employee of a recognized
institution shall be removed without holding any enquiry and it
further provides that no final order in this regard shall be passed
unless prior approval of the Director of Education has been
obtained.” The first part of Section 18 is to be read along with
first proviso. Under the circumstances, taking a contrary view
that in case of dismissal/removal of an employee of a recognized
institution which is after holding the departmental enquiry the
prior approval of the Director of Education is not required is
unsustainable and to that extent the judgment of the Larger
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Central Academy
Society is not a good law. [Para 5.5][959-B-E]
3. Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 18 of the
Act, 1989, it is specifically observed and held that even in case
of termination/removal of an employee of a recognized institution
after holding departmental enquiry/proceedings prior approval
of the Director of Education has to be obtained as per first proviso
to Section 18 of the Act, 1989. [Para 5.6][959-E-F]
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court restoring the order of
termination which as such was without obtaining the prior
approval of the Director of Education deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The order
of Tribunal setting aside the order of termination confirmed by
the Single Judge is hereby restored. Consequently, the appellant
shall have to be reinstated in service and considering the fact
that the respondent(s) is/are un-aided institution and the order
of termination was passed as far as back in the year 1998, this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
951
Court directs that the appellant shall be entitled to 50% of the
back wages, however, he shall be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.