Scope Of Judicial Review In Service Matters Limited, Affected Party Must Avail Civil Remedy: Gujarat High Court Reiterates

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Special Civil Application filed by a principal against his termination by Anandalaya Education Society citing a clear element of loss of confidence in the petitioner by the respondent-institution.

Justice Sandeep N Bhatt made it clear that the writ is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the present respondent institution.

Reliance was placed on Shambhavi Kumari vs Sabarmati University rendered in 2022 (0) AIJEL – HC 244267 wherein it has been clearly established that when there is dispute essentially, which is in the realm of private contract, and therefore, if at all there is an alleged arbitrary action on the part of the respondent, the same would give cause to the petitioner to initiate civil action before the Civil Court but in the facts of the present case, the writ petition against the private educational institution would not be maintainable.

The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner applied for the position of Principal at Anandalaya Education Society in 2019 and was selected and appointed after undergoing the necessary selection procedures. The appointment letter specified that the petitioner was on probation for one year and was subsequently confirmed by the respondent through an office order. However, the petitioner faced several allegations, which led to departmental proceedings and the issuance of a charge-sheet. The respondent then temporarily suspended the petitioner from his position.

After being served with the charge-sheet, the petitioner provided a detailed response in which he denied the allegations. The respondent then informed the petitioner via a letter about the departmental proceedings. Further, the respondent issued an order extending the suspension of the petitioner until the completion of the inquiry proceedings.

The petitioner informed that in 2022, while travelling to Jaipur, he had sent an email to the respondent informing them about his unavailability. However, despite this communication, the respondent terminated the petitioner's services through an order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the current petition.

Justice Bhatt highlighted the following aspects which are undisputed on total consideration of the issue involved:

1. The petitioner was serving as Principal in the School.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed on probation by way of contract.
3. The petitioner had allegedly committed some gross misconduct, and therefore, the respondent institution followed the necessary procedure by issuing charge-sheet, etc., and thereafter, initiated inquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer. It transpired from the record that during the course of inquiry, the Inquiry Officer faced several threats from the petitioner and not only that, it also transpired from the record that other teachers, serving in the School had received threats from the present petitioner about the dire consequences and one of the teachers has filed criminal case against the petitioner during the pendency of inquiry.
4. When the inquiry was on the verge of its completion, at that point of time, due to non-conduciveness and highhandedness of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer refused to proceed further with the inquiry proceeding. Thereafter, the chairman of the respondent institution exercised powers under Clause 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988 and dismissed the services of the present petitioner.

Justice Bhatt opined, "In view of abovementioned factual aspects, it transpires that the conduct of the petitioner is apparently unbecoming to the Principal of the School. Not only that, the School has tried to follow the necessary procedure by holding the inquiry, but also the conduct of the petitioner was such that the inquiry could not be proceeded further and inquiry was stopped due to non-willingness of the Inquiry Officer to proceed further. The conduct of the petitioner as Principal of the School was sending a wrong message among the teachers and students as he is expected to behave in the most appropriate and disciplined manner." 

Further, considering the aspect of inquiry proceeding, and also the fact that it is clear from the record that the respondent has appointed the petitioner on contract and his services are governed by the terms of contract and there is valid clause in the contract, whereby if the appointment order read with the provisions of the said Rules, 1988, Justice Bhatt opined,

“it clearly transpires that the respondent authority though it is not required, as cannot be considered as ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and looking to the nature of the service, which can be termed as contractual appointment and also considering the fact that even the FIR is filed against the petitioner during the pendency of inquiry by one of the teachers, the termination of the petitioner is found in larger public interest as the petitioner being a Principal of the school has to show more courtesy and respect towards the rules and regulations, which he has not shown.”

Reliance was placed on the judgement in the case of Regional Manager, UCO Bank and Anr. vs. Krishna Kumar Bhardwaj reported in 2022 (5) SCC 695, whereby it has been held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of judicial review in respect of dismissal whereby the Court has further held that power of judicial review in such circumstances is well circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed earlier and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits.

Therefore in view of that also, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, Justice Bhatt observed that the impugned action of the respondent authority is in consonance with law and by following the Rules, and therefore, no reason is required to be called for by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction in view of the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While disposing of the petition, Justice Bhatt held, "This Court finds that there is clear element of loss of confidence in the petitioner by the respondent institution in view of the above stated fact, and therefore, the respondent is justified in its action by exercising the power under Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988 and on legal aspect also, considering the settled legal position also, this Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere in the order passed by the respondent by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the present petition is not required to be considered, and therefore, the present petition is dismissed."

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Sharma vs. Anandalaya Education Society R/Special Civil Application 1942 of 2023

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 66