Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. To conclude this part of the Judgment it may be mentioned here that the Secondary School Code was the precursor of a bulk of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. The mode and manner of taking disciplinary action against an employee of a school were laid down in para 77.3 of that Code. However, since after the commencement of the Act and the Rules on 15th and 16th July, 1981 such matters would be governed by the provisions set out above.

10. In this legal background we may now turn to a few facts about which there is little dispute. In or about the month of January, 1943, seven persons formed themselves into a Society by subscribing their signatures to a memorandum of association and filing the same with the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, C.P. and Berar. The said Society was named as 'The National Education Society, Khamgaon' and its object was to give instruction and diffuse useful knowledge to the public and to conduct the National Education Society's High School, Khamgaon and to conduct educational institutions for commercial and other purposes. It was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on January 21, 1943. On the application of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, to the region of the State, the said Society came to be registered as a public trust as under Section 2(13) of the said Act the phrase "public trust" is defined to include a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 9(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act states that for the purposes of that Act, charitable purpose includes "education" amongst others. This is how respondent No. 1 Society (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Society) came to be designated as a public trust.

11. For the District Level to national level sports meet in 1979, the School headed by the petitioner had entered a Kabaddi team. The rival teams had complained that two of the players were above the prescribed age and one who was not a student of the said School had impersonated a student. It appears that after holding an informal inquiry the then President of the respondent Society administered a warning to the concerned staff including the petitioner. By this letter dt. May 5, 1980 the Collector and Chairman of the District Sports Council, Buldhana, told the President that mere warning was not sufficient punishment for the "grave offence" and that the institution ought to have taken serious notice of the affair and ought to punish the concerned staff severely. This was followed by a letter from the Deputy Director of Education, Amravati on May. 14, 1981 in which he asked Management to take action against the petitioner and two other teachers under para 77.3 of Secondary School Code and submit a report to him within seven days. In pursuance of this- the Secretary of the respondent Society by his letter dated June 25, 1981 called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation about the alleged lapses on her part. The petitioner submitted her reply on July 2, 1981. In the meeting of the Governing Body of the respondent Society held on August 7, 1981, the reply of the petitioner was considered and having found it not satisfactory, it was decided to nominate Seth Damji Anandji Vikramsi and Seth Mahavirprasad Asaranji, being members of the Governing Body on the Inquiry Committee as required by para 77.3 of the said Code. It was also resolved to ask the petitioner to nominate her representative on the said Committee within 15 days. It is alleged by the respondent Society in its return that this decision was taken in ignorance of the fact that the Act and the Rules had come into force on 15th and 16th July, 1981 respectively and it came to the knowledge of the management in the middle of August, 1981. Hence in a subsequent meeting held on August 25, 1981 the Governing Body resolved to institute an enquiry against the petitioner and the two teachers and to appoint an Inquiry Committee for that purpose under the said Act. It was further resolved that the Inquiry Committee in so far as the petitioner was concerned would: