LexRAMESH AHLUWALIA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 12 S.C.R. 315 RAMESH AHLUWALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6634 of 2012) SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: A B Art. 226 - Writ petition against Management of a private c unaided school by its employee - Held: Even a purely private body, where State has no control over its internal affairs, would be amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226, for issuance of a writ of mandamus, provided such private body is performing public functions which are normally expected 0 to be performed by State. Art. 226 - Writ petition - Involving disputed questions of fact - Held: Since the writ petition clearly involve.s disputed questions of fact, it is appropriate that the matter should be decided by an appropriate tribunal/court - The remedy of E appeal before State School Education Tribunal is clearly available to appellant - It would, therefore, be appropriate for appellant to avail the remedy of appeal before Education Tribunal - Remedy - Service Jaw. F Administrative Law: Bias - In disciplinary proceedings against employee of school, Principal appearing as witness of management - Principal also sitting as a member of Disciplinary Committee to hear appeal of employee - Held: Having supported the G case of management, it was not appropriate for Principal to participate in proceedings of Disciplinary Committee - Actual and demonstrable fair play must be the hallmark of the proceedings and decisions of administrative and quasi 315 H 316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A judicial tribunals, in particular, when decisions taken by these bodies are likely to cause adverse civil consequences to the persons agains't whom such decisions are taken - Order passed by Disciplinary Committee is quashed - Having regard to the fact situation and the time which has elapsed B since the order of removal was passed, it would be· inappropriate at this stage to relegate the appellant back to Disciplinary Committee - In the interest of justice, appellant is permitted to challenge the order of Disciplinary Authority before State Schoof Education Tribunal - Jurisdiction - c Education/Educational Institutions - Service law. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani and Ors., 1989 (2) SCR 697 = 1989 (2) SCC 691, Unni Krishnan J.P. and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and D Ors. 1993 (1) SCR 594 = 1993 (1) SCC 645 and Zee Tele films Ltd. & An,r. Vs. Union of India & Ors 2005 (1) SCR 913 = 2005 (4) SCC 649; T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 = 2002 (8) SCC 481 - relied on. E Zee Tefefi/ms Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (1) SCR 913 = 2005 (4) SCC 649; and Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., 2002 (3) scR 100 = 2002 (5) sec 111 - cited. F Case Law Reference: 2005 (1) SCR 913 cited para 8 1989 (2) SCR 697 relied on para 10 G 1993 (1) SCR 594 relied on para 10 2005 (1) SCR 913 relied on para 10 2002 (3) SCR 100 cited para 8 H 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 relied on para 12 \ RAMESH AHLUWALIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.317 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. A 6634 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 2'5.10.2010 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 368 of 2010 (0 & M). Sanjay Parikh, AN. Singh, Marnia Saxena, Anitha Shenoy for the Appellant. S.S. Ray, Rakhi Ray, R.S. Gulia, Vaibhav Gulia, Tara B Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma for the Respondents. c The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the entire records. D 3. The Appellant Ramesh Ahluwalia was working as an Administrative Officer in the DAV Public School, Lawrence E Road, Amritsar. He has been serving in that institution since April, 1983. At the relevant time, the Appellant was working as an Administrative Officer, to which post he was promoted by order dated August, 2005. It appears that one lady official Smt. Jaswinder Kaur made a complaint to the Principal of the School F on 28th Novem~er, 2006 about the alleged misconduct of the Appellant on 17.11.2006. On the basis of the aforesaid misconduct, the Appellant was issued a warning letter by the Principal Sm!. Neera Sharma on 9th December, 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.