Bhagwan Lal Annotiya vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this petition, petitioner has challenged the punishment order dated 28.08.2003 Annexure P/11. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 16.11.2000 (Annexure P/1). Following charges were made against him:-

The petitioner denied the charges and, therefore, enquiry officer was appointed. In the departmental enquiry four prosecution witnesses entered the witness box to substantiate the allegations. After the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer prepared the initial report. The said report was supplied to the petitioner by notice dated 09.01.2003. The petitioner prayed for time by letter dated 22.01.2003 (Annexure P/6). The enquiry officer in his detailed report found that allegation against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure P/9) dated 16.08.2003. The disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 28.08.2003 (Annexure P/11) thereby dismissing the petitioner from the services. Petitioner did not prefer any appeal and assailed this order before this Court.

Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the enquiry the prosecution relied on all the witnesses who were not the employees of middle school. The best evidence would have been from the employees of the same institution. In absence thereof the evidence of other persons is not trustworthy. In addition, he submits that petitioner''s reply to the charge sheet has not been considered by the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer''s report has not been supplied to him and his reply to the enquiry officer''s report has not been considered. By filing certain documents with the writ petition it is stated that petitioner has not committed any misconduct.

Smt. Pachauri supported the impugned order and the disciplinary proceedings.

The charges against the petitioner are very serious. The scope of interference in a disciplinary proceedings is limited and well defined. This Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate authority to reweigh or reappreciate the evidence. This is also settled in law that if some evidence is available that is sufficient to hold the delinquent employee as guilty. The principle of preponderance of probability is applicable in departmental enquiry and not the principle of establishing proof beyond doubt, the principle which is applicable in criminal cases. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another Vs. S. Samuthiram, . This court is obliged to examine the decision making process and not the decision itself. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, .

Considering the aforesaid, in my opinion, if some evidence is there, it is sufficient to hold the applicant as guilty. On perusal of DA record it is clear that Shri Rakesh, Rameshwar, Devendra and Narendra entered the witness box on behalf of the prosecution. These persons are parents of students, who reported them about the misconduct of the petitioner. All the said witnesses have deposed that the petitioner used to come to the institution in drunken condition and used to charge more fees from the students without giving them any receipt for the same. Merely because teachers or employees of the school are not examined, I am unable to hold that the charges are not established against the petitioner. There is no material to disbelieve the statements of said persons. The enquiry officer prepared the detailed report and on the basis of allegations found that charges are partly established. In the opinion of this Court, even if charges are partly established, the same are very serious in view of the conduct of the petitioner. The conduct of the In-Charge Headmaster must be free from suspicion. The purity of educational institution cannot be permitted to be spoiled by its employees. I am unable to hold that there is any flaw in decision making process. Enquiry officer''s report was very much supplied to the petitioner. If the petitioner''s reply has not been considered by the disciplinary authority, no prejudice could be established by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority gave sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit his representation. In the totality of the circumstances, in my opinion, there is no flaw in the disciplinary proceedings or in the punishment order. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No costs.