Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had remanded a teacher's dismissal dispute to the School Tribunal on a single point (the Secretary's authorisation to initiate proceedings) without examining the other issues, and sent the writ petition back to the High Court for a full decision on all claims and defences.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could quash the School Tribunal's order and remand the matter on the solitary point of the Secretary's authorisation, without considering the appellant's natural justice objections and the correctness of the Tribunal's findings.
Held
- Even if the Secretary of the management was authorised to issue the charge-sheet, the High Court still had to consider whether the inquiry breached the principles of natural justice (including the closure of the inquiry before cross-examination of the management's witnesses was completed) and whether the Tribunal's findings were justified; remanding on one point alone was improper. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- Where several issues arise in a case, the court should ordinarily record its answer to each with reasons rather than decide on one decisive point; this ensures all issues are considered, gives clarity and finality, respects the litigants' right to a comprehensive decision, and assists an appellate court. (¶ 9)
- Deciding only one point while leaving the others unaddressed was a fundamental flaw vitiating the High Court's order, so the writ petition had to be reconsidered afresh on the parties' claims and defences. (¶ 10)
- As the appellant had superannuated and reinstatement was no longer possible, the primary questions for the High Court would be whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action and, if not, whether the appellant was entitled to back wages and retiral benefits. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's order allowing the writ petition and its order rejecting review set aside; writ petition remitted to the High Court for fresh decision, preferably within four months of assignment; all questions of fact and law left open; parties free to explore mediated settlement.