1972 (11) TMI 105 - SC - Indian Laws

President's modification of teacher reinstatement without hearing deemed invalid; emphasizes fair hearing right. High Court's refusal to grant relief unfair; decision set aside. Case remanded for fair hearing.

Sayeedur Rehman Versus The State Of Bihar & Others

The Supreme Court held that the President's modification of the teacher's reinstatement order without a hearing was invalid, emphasizing the fundamental ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the President of the Board of Secondary Education's order dated February 25, 1961, reviewing the earlier order dated April 22, 1960, without a hearing.2. The High Court's refusal to grant relief based on the argument that it would be academic.3. Compliance with the rules governing the service conditions of teachers in non-Government High Schools.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the President's Order Dated February 25, 1961:The appellant, a teacher at Araria Higher Secondary School, was dismissed on charges of misappropriation of school money. The President of the Board of Secondary Education set aside this dismissal on April 22, 1960, and directed reinstatement with full salary and allowances. However, upon a request for review by the Managing Committee, the President modified his order on February 25, 1961, limiting the appellant's entitlement to subsistence allowance during the suspension period. This modification was made without affording the appellant any hearing, which the appellant contended was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the modification of the earlier order without a hearing was invalid, emphasizing that 'this unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision by any authority which decides a controversial issue affecting the rights of the rival contestants.'2. High Court's Refusal to Grant Relief:The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, reasoning that the President's initial order of April 22, 1960, was invalid based on an earlier decision in Liladhar Jha v. Board of Secondary Education, which stated that the President had no jurisdiction to order payment of arrears. The High Court deemed it academic to declare the review order invalid. The Supreme Court found this approach to be 'highly unfair and unjust,' stating that the appellant was entitled to relief as the review order directly affected his rights. The Court pointed out that the Managing Committee might still consider the review order operative if not expressly quashed, thus necessitating judicial intervention.3. Compliance with Rules Governing Service Conditions:The appellant's counsel highlighted Rule 18 of the service conditions, which mandates the Managing Committee to follow the Board's orders. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's grievance was specifically against the review order made without a hearing. The Court emphasized that if the Board chooses to reconsider the order dated April 22, 1960, the appellant must be given a fair hearing, as required by Rule 17, which embodies the principle of natural justice. The Court did not express an opinion on the competence of the review but underscored the necessity of a hearing if reconsideration occurs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and the President's orders dated February 25, 1961, and January 18, 1964. The case was remanded to the stage prior to the February 25, 1961 order, with instructions that any reconsideration of the April 22, 1960 order must include a fair hearing for the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice and fair procedure in administrative decisions affecting individual rights. The appellant was awarded costs from the contesting respondents.