Minority Schools Cannot Delegate Manager’s Power to Dismiss: Gujarat High Court Orders Fresh Show-Cause While Upholding Inquiry Against Teacher
The Court noted that minority schools are not strictly bound by the procedure for conducting disciplinary inquiries under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a minority school cannot delegate the statutory power of the “Manager” to dismiss a teacher, setting aside a termination order passed by an unauthorized person while directing fresh proceedings from the stage of a second show-cause notice. At the same time, the Court upheld the validity of the departmental inquiry conducted against the teacher, who was accused of misbehaviour and instigating students.
The Court noted that, being a minority institution, the school was not bound by any specific statutory rules prescribing a rigid procedure under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972, and on facts, found the inquiry to be fair. However, it held that under Sections 2(j) and 36(1) of the Act, the power to terminate a teacher vests exclusively in the “Manager”, the authority entrusted with the control and management of the school, and cannot be delegated to any other individual, making compliance with this statutory requirement mandatory even for minority institutions.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed, “As per Section 36(1) of the Act, 1972, the service of Teacher shall be terminated by the Manager. As discussed above, the Manager is already defined in Section 2(j) of the Act, 1972. Undoubtedly, the governing body of the school can be considered as a body of persons in charge of control/management of the school, but by no stretch of imagination Mr. Raj can step into the shoes of the management as defined under the Act, 1972. So far as the provisions of the Act, 1972, are concerned, there is no power of delegation available to such a Manager so as to delegate his power in favour of another person. Likewise, as per the Rules and Regulations of the School, the Managing Board can delegate its power to the heads of the institution and not to other persons. Furthermore, the relevant resolution dated 09.12.2013 authorizing Mr. Raj to pass an order of dismissal is only signed by one person, though the resolution depicts that it was chaired by the President with a quorum of other persons, but actually, they have not signed the resolution.”, the Bench further noted.
“…the school is a minority institution and there are no rules and regulations framed under the Act, 1972, which cast duty upon the school to conduct the inquiry in the manner prescribed under such rules. At least, nothing of such sort was brought to my notice by the learned advocate for the Teacher”, the Bench observed.
Sudhir Nanavati, Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sandip H Munjyasara appeared for the respondent.
The matter pertained to the dismissal of a teacher appointed in February 13, 2006, accused of misconduct ranging from sending objectionable emails to misbehaving with staff and allegedly instigating students.
He was served with a show-cause notice dated April 1, 2013 under Section 36(1) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972. Following a departmental inquiry, the school terminated his services in December 9, 2013. The teacher, then challenged this action before the Educational Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal and directed a fresh show-cause process, leading both sides to approach the High Court.
Now, the Court examined a legal flaw that the termination order and second show-cause notice were issued by a person (Fr. M.G. Raj) who, at the relevant time, did not hold any official position in the school or trust that would legally empower him to act as the “appointing authority” under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972.
On that, the Bench observed, “As per the Rules and Regulations of the School, more particularly, Rule 11 authorizes the Managing Board to delegate its power to the head of the institution. It is not disputed during the course of arguments that Mr. Raj was neither a Trustee nor the Principal when he served the final show-cause notice and the order of dismissal upon Teacher. Since the resolution dated 15.06.2005 was not placed before the Tribunal and is now submitted by the school in its petition at Annexure K - page No. 111, it cannot be looked into by this Court".
“I am of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal is neither erroneous nor perverse, which does not require any interference by this Court in so far as remanding the matter back to the School management for issuance of a fresh show-cause notice and to pass an appropriate order of punishment upon receipt of reply from Teacher is concerned. According to my view, neither final show-cause notice dated 21.11.2013, nor the order of dismissal dated 09.12.2013, passed by Mr. Raj, can be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 1972”, it further noted.
Cause Title: The Trustee, Ahmedabad Jesuits Schools Society & Anr. v. Biju Jose Vadaken & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:20933]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sudhir Nanavati, Senior Counsel For Nanavati & Nanavati.
Respondent: Sandip H Munjyasara, Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, AGP.