itwari Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Director of Education and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Supreme Court of India|
|Case Number||Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 1979, D/- 5-12-1979|
|Judge|| V.R. Krishna Iyer,; R.S. Pathak and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1980SC1527a; (1980)1SCC682; 1980(12)LC95(SC)|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Article 226|
|Appellant||itwari Shikshan Sanstha|
|Respondent||Director of Education and ors.|
- indian penal code, 1890. section 498-a:cruelty - husband along with his 4 relatives were charged - thrust of fir was against uncle and aunt of victims husband inconsistencies and improvements in evidence of victim and her relatives - improvements primarily relating to other relations of husband than his uncle and aunt held, acquittal as yet only of aunt and uncle of husband is improper. all relaltives are liable to be acquitted. as evidence as regards husband is clear and cogent, conviction of husband is proper. sections 498-a & 304-b: cruelty to wife held, cruelty to wife is a distinct offence from offence of dowry death. however, cruelty is a common essential to both offences. section 498-a, 306 : cruelty to wife-. distinction from abetment of suicide held, difference is of..........contended that the teacher (respondent no. 3) who had been directed to be re-instated by the deputy director of education should not have been so re-instated. he further contended that the deputy director had no jurisdiction to order such re-instatement. the dismissal which was set aside by the educational authorities in appeal was on certain charges, only one of which was stated to have been proved and the charge was that the teacher had gone on fast for a few days. the deputy director and the director, therefore, cancelled the dismissal and directed, re-instantement. this order was challenged in the high court under article 226 but the appeal was dismissed in limine.2. we have heard the arguments of counsel. but we do not think that this is a case where any substantial question.....
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.
1. Dr. Ghatate appearing for the appellant contended that the teacher (respondent No. 3) who had been directed to be re-instated by the Deputy Director of Education should not have been so re-instated. He further contended that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to order such re-instatement. The dismissal which was set aside by the Educational Authorities in appeal was on certain charges, only one of which was stated to have been proved and the charge was that the teacher had gone on fast for a few days. The Deputy Director and the Director, therefore, cancelled the dismissal and directed, re-instantement. This order was challenged in the High Court under Article 226 but the appeal was dismissed in limine.
2. We have heard the arguments of Counsel. But we do not think that this is a case where any substantial question of law calls for decision specially having regard to the charge for which the dismissal has been imposed. We are satisfied that this is a case where we are not called upon to decide any question of law.
3. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and this means that the teacher (respondent No. 3) will stand re-instated and be eligible for his salary right from the date of dismissal,. Dr. Ghatate complains that the states make a grant which covers the salaries of teachers and if respondent No. 3 was to be paid the entire salary, the grant will not be available to that extent for other expenses. While the State has no direct liability, it is perfectly open to the appellant management to move the State Government for recouping the grant equivalent to the teacher's salary. In view of the charged circumstances and direction for re-instatement with back pay, the State will consider the equities of the situation regarding the claim of the management. With these directions we dismiss the appeal.
4. Respondent No. 3 is allowed his costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-and that amount will be withdrawn by respondent No. 3 out of the amount in deposit.