LexSAYEEDUR REHMAN versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [) F G H SA YEEDUR REHMAN v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS November 28, 1972 [A. ALAG!RISWAMI, l. 0. DUA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J Principle of Natural Justice-Appellant dismissed on a charge of mf•- appropriation-Coard of Secondary Education direct~d reinstatement. with /uU salary-Later, on revision, Board ordered subs.,·tence salary "'."h.out giving of opportunity to the appellant of being heard-Whether principle of natural ;ustice violated. The appellant, a teacher in a school in Bihar, was dismissed fro.m sef\'ice hy the Managing Committee of the school on a ch~rge of mis- appropriation of school fund. On appeal by him, t?e .President ~f the Board of Secondary Education, set aside the orde~ of d1Sm1ssal and directed hi! reinsta.tement. The Managing Committee remstated the .appellant, ~ut requested the President of the Board df Secondary Educahon to ~vtew the whole matter especially with regard to the payment fo~ the ~nod .of suspension. The President, after rev;ewing the matter, modified his earlier order. The appellant, however, was not given any bearing before the. review order. The appellant thereupon filed an application under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in \!le High Court where it was contended that the President of the Board of Secondary Education, could not modify the earlier order witb~ut giving the petitioner an adequate opportunity of being beard. The High Court following an earlier Bench decision, in Llladhar Iha v. Board of Secondary Education, Patna, (1963) B.L.R. 880, held the order of the Prc,i<lcnt of the Board of Secondary Education directing payment of full salary etc., to be invalid. Having so held, the High Court proceeded to obsef\'e that the petitioner would gain nothing rl it was further held that the •ubsequent review by the President was equally inv<>lid on tile ground that no opportunity was given to the appellant. On appeal to this Court, HELD: (i) On the facts and circumstances of this case, it was in- cumbent on th<; High Court to declare as invalid the review order of the President of the Board of Secondary Education without affording to the appellant any opportunity of being beard and also his order dated January 18, 1964. The impugned order of the High Court as also the order made by the President of the Board of Secondary Education dated February 25, 1961.,along with his subsequent order dated January 18, 1964, should be set aside. [1047 Fl (ii) After setting aside these orders, the parties are relegated to the stage immediately prior to the order dated February 25, 1961, with the result that the President of the Board of Secondary Education, would now dispose of, in accordance with law, the request of the Managing Com- mittee, to reconsider 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 df bearing and of adequately representing his case. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION of 19~7. 1 S-LS21 Sup. CI/73 Civil Appeal No. 1222. JOH SUPREME COUllT llEPORTS (1973] 2 S.C.R, Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 3, 1965 of the Patna High Court in M. J. Case No. 1257 of 1964. U. P. Singh for the appellant. A s. C. Agarwal, V. J. Francis and P. D. Sharma for the res- B pondents No. 1-6, 8 & 9, Thci Judgment of the Court was delivered by DuA, J. This appeal is by special leave and is directed againit the order of the High Court of Judicat_ure at Patna dated Septem- ber 3, 1965 dismissing the appellant's writ petition. c The appellant, a teacher of Araria Higher Secondary School wou dismissed from service by the Managing Committee of the said school at a meeting held on February 27, 1958 on a charge of m.isappropriation of school money. On appeal by hinI the Presi- dent ot the Board of Secondary Education, set aside the order. of dismissal by order dated April 22. 1960 and directed his reinstate- D ment in service. By the same order of reinstatement a further direction was given that the appellant should be paid full salary, dearness allowance and increment from the date of his suspension till the date of reinstatement after adjusting the ~ount already paid. When this order was received by the Managing Committee it was obeyed so far as the reinstatement ot the appellant is con- E cemed but the Managing Committee requested the President of the Board of Secondary Education
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.