VASUDEO VISHWANATH SARAF versus NEW EDUCATION INSTITUTE & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 458 · Decided: 05-08-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VASUDEO VISHWANATH SARAF 
,. 
v. 
NEW EDUCATION INSTITUTE & ORS. 
B 
AUGUST 5, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
t 
Constitution of India, 1950-A rticle 226-Necessity of making rea-
i 
c 
saned orders. 
-
The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 
a school run by the respondent-society, subsequently promoted as 
Supervisor and the<eafter was working as Principal till reversion by a 
Resolution ol the Mnnaging Committee of the respondent-society. 
::ii. 
D 
The petitioner challenged the Resolution of reversion by filing a 
suit, which was dismissed. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal 
holding that the order of reversion was illegal and bad and further held 
that the petitioner was entitled to have all the benefits and emoluments 
as Principal. 
E 
During the pendency of the second appeal, opposite party No. I 
commenced a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, under cl. 
77 .3 of Secondary School Code, which related to mistakes in accounting 
in matters pertaining to the society and not relating to the school and 
the Enquiry Committee recommended the termination of the petition-
F 
er's services. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Deputy Director of 
-')' 
Education, who held that the order terminating service was dispro-
portionate to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee and 
directed that the petitioner's service should not be terminated till the 
¥-
decision of the suit. This order was challenged by the management 
before the Director of Education. The joint Director of Education 
G 
allowed the appeal and upheld the recommendations made by the 
Enquiry Committee regarding the termination of service. 
The writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned 
order was rejected by merely recording the order, 'rejected'. 
H 
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a 'uit, and during its pendency the 
458 
V.V. SARAFv. N.E.l. 
459 
management again commenced an enquiry, which was completed with· 
out any compliance of the principles of natural justice, and the Enquiry 
Committee recommended termination of the services of the petitioner 
from the pool of Assistant Teacher. 
In appeal, the Deputy Director of Education, without giving any 
hearing to the petitioner sent a letter informing him that under instruc-
tions from the Director of Education, the decision of termination of 
service on the basis of the first enquiry held against him being upheld by 
the Director of Education it was not necessary to entertain his appeal 
against the decision of the subsequent enquiry and, therefore, the 
appeal was filed. 
On a representation made by the petitioner, the Government 
forwarded the appeal to the School Tribunal, which was dismissed. The 
;c 
writ petition of the petitioner was also rejected. 
r 
The petitioner appealed to this Court hy way of Special Leave 
Petition. 
Allowing the appeal, the court, 
HELD: I. The Judgment and Order passed on 8.6. 1984 in \\; rit 
Petition No. 4063 of 1984 is set aside, and the Court below directed to 
dispose of the said writ petition in accordance with law after hearing the 
parties and by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible 
preferably within a period of four months. [467B·C) 
2. Fair play and justice demands that justice must not only be 
done but must seems to have been done. [465F-G] 
Mahabir Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 1970 (SC) 1302 at 1304, 
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., [1966] l SCR 
466, Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibbon Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2057 at 2060, 
Siemen Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 
(SC) 785, Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 (SC) 1355 at 1~58 
paras 18 & 19 and Rangnath v. Dau/at Rao and Others, [1975) (I) SCC 
686 at 690 para 7, followed. 
3. It is a cardinal principle of the rule of law which governs our 
policy that the Court including writ Court is required to record reasons 
while disposing of a writ petition. This is imperative for the fair and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
,; .. 
/i. 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
equitable adminstration of justice. The recording of reasons in deciding 
cases or applications affecting rights of parties is a mandatory require-
ment to be fulfilled in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 
[465B-D] 
4. It is no answer that for the purpose of expeditious disposal of 
B 
cases a laconic order like ~dismissed' or ~rejected' will be made without 
passing a reasoned order or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.