AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following relief(s): -
(i)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order of removal dated 18.10.2010, passed by the Respondent No.3, Appellate Order dated 20.04.2011, passed by the Respondent No. 2 as well as Office order dated 03.05.2011, passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure Nos.-A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively to Compilation No. 'I' of this petition.
(ii)to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits thereof as if no such illegal order of removal would have ever been passed, within a period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. C
Paragraph No. 8 (ii)(A) :- to issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Certiorari holding the provision contained in the paragraph No. 5 of the impugned circular dated 1st January, 1990, passed by the Respondents, irrational and ultra virus and quashing the same (Annexure No.A-18 to Compilation No. 'I' of this petition.
"Paragraph No. 8(ii) (B): - to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow wards of the petitioner namely Mr. Avinash Singh and Miss Supriya Singh admission to their respective higher classes viz. Xth and XIth in the Jawahar Navodya Vidyalya, Maribhu District-Jaunpur (U.P.) for which they have already qualified the examinations of class IXth and Xth respectively in the last academic session and the respondents be further directed to impart teaching regularly to them in future on usual terms and conditions."
(iii)to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
(iv)to award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant had been working as Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T.) [English] and posted under the control of respondent No. 4. The applicant was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 28.06.2005 (annexure A-4). The applicant denied the charges and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) decided to hold a detailed inquiry and appointed Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer. As per applicant, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in illegal and arbitrary manner and submitted its enquiry report dated 07.05.2010 holding both the charge against the applicant as proved. The enquiry report was served upon the applicant on 21.05.2010. The applicant filed a representation against the enquiry report on 08.07.2010. However, the Disciplinary Authority without considering the points raised by the applicant in his representation, passed the impugned order of removal dated 18.10.2010 (annexure A-1). The applicant preferred an Appeal (annexure A-7) on 19.11.2010 before the Appellate Authority (respondent No. 2). The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal of applicant by order dated 20.04.2011 (Annexure A-2). Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders of respondents, the applicant has filed the present O.A.
The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the applicant - Sri Dushyant Singh, TGT (Eng.) JNV, Jaunpur on 24.02.2005 misbehaved with Sri A.K. Mishra, TGT (Maths) of the above vidyalaya and he abruptly attacked upon him using abusive and un-parliamentary language. Sri Mishra got hurt physically and mentally. The matter was reported to the Principal who called upon both the teachers in his chamber compromise note written by the applicant the situation could somehow be tackled and normalized. On the next day at about 5.30 a.m. when Mrs. Gayatri Mishra the wife of Sh. Α.Κ. Mishra was roaming in the campus for morning walk, the applicant again misbehaved with Mrs. Gayatri Mishra beaten and assaulted her. Due to this disorderly behaviour and atrocities on the part of the applicant, the peaceful atmosphere of the Vidyalaya was disturbed on 24th and 25th Feb. 2005. Shri Dushyant Singh in subversive of peace and discipline set a bad precedence among the staff and students. His riotous disorderly behavior, misbehaving and cruelly beating to Shri A.K. Mishra and her wife Smt. Gayatri Mishra were the acts, highly unbecoming on his part as in the educational residential institution the behavior of co-the teacher is example to the pupil and his role is loco parantice. Apart from it while working as TGT (Eng.) at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, District Jaunpur, the applicant has not been discharging his duties and responsibilities properly and he was in the habit of disturbing the congenial and peaceful atmosphere of the institution exhibiting his immoral behaviour, insubordination and willful disobedience of the orders of superior authority. The applicant in subversive of discipline and grossly exhibiting his becoming behaviour and conduct, when the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jaunpur issued a Memo dated 16.02.2005 asking the applicant not to leave the station without prior permission and getting the leave sanctioned by the competent authority and, in a derogatory manner, the applicant mentioned a very insulting remark to the Principal "You are an idiot Principal". This remark on the part of the applicant per se established that his continuance further is prejudicial to the interest of the organization as he cannot maintain the relation of Master and Servant. Taking into account the above misdeed on the part of the applicant it was prima facie established that the applicant is guilty of violating the rule 3(I), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 applicable to the employees of the Samiti and accordingly a departmental proceeding under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was initiated against the applicant and he was placed under suspension by the order dated 14.03.2005. A charge sheet dated 28.06.2005 was issued to the applicant. On denial of the charges, Sh. J.S. Chauhan, Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lucknow was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to the charges levelled against applicant. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 07.05.2010 in which he concluded that on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, he arrived to the conclusion that the applicant failed to maintain devotion to duty and he acted in a manner of unbecoming of a government servant committing the misconduct as contained in Article-I and Article-II of the memorandum of charge dated 28.06.2005. The applicant had got full opportunity of defence and during the inquiry, the prosecution succeeded to establish the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer finally recorded that the charge of Article-I and II are proved. After taking the representation from the applicant dated 08.07.2010, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 18.10.2010. The punishment awarded the by Disciplinary Authority, as per the respondents, is not grave and harsh and it is commensurate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the respondents. The applicant preferred and appeal to the Appellate Authority against the punishment order and the Appellate Authority after careful perusal of the appeal, so preferred by the applicant, vide appellate order dated 20.04.2011 upheld the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondents have also submitted that through this O.A., the applicant has sought plural relief(s). Hence, the O.A. being devoid of merit may be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties.
This O.A. pertains to the year 2011 when the applicant was aged about ‘54’ years. Therefore, the relief No. 2 with regard to reinstatement of applicant in service cannot be considered at this stage. Hence, the same has become infructuous. The relief for which applicant is entitled is that after quashing of the order of removal, he will be entitled for consequential benefits. Subsequently, relief No. 8 (ii) [a] and [b] by a flux of time also becomes infructuous with regard to admission of children of the applicant in Class 10 and 11. The only relief which is addressed by the applicant is relief No. 1 and subsequent consequential relief. The applicant has challenged the impugned removal order dated 18.10.2010, appellate order dated 20.04.2011 and office order dated 03.05.2011. First, we have considered the office order dated 03.05.2011, which is regarding retention of government accommodation. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the said quarter is vacated. Accordingly, relief against the order dated 03.05.2011 is also become infructuous. Therefore, we are only concise to removal order dated 18.10.2010 and appellate order dated 20.04.2011.
From perusal of charge sheet dated 28.06.2005, it appears that two articles of charges were framed, which are quoted herein below: -
“Article-I
That the said Shri Dushyant Singh while working as TGT (Eng.) at JNV, District Jaunpur attacked and beaten Sh. A.K. Mishra, TGT (Maths) on 24.02.2005 and further assaulted and brutally beaten Mrs. Gayatri Mishra, W/o Sh. A.K. Mishra in the campus of the above Vidyalaya on 25.02.2005 when she was roaming for the morning walk.
Article-II
That the said Sh. Dushyant Singh while working as TGT (Eng) at JNV, District Jaunpur neglected his duties and committed willful insubordination and disobedience of the orders of the superior authority with the utter disregard of the code of conduct and made derogatory remarks on the communication of the superior officers.
The aforesaid acts constitute a gross misconduct and unbecoming of a Govt. Servant in contravention to the provisions of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964, Rule 3(I), (ii) and (iii).”
The list of relied upon documents is also annexed as annexure-3 of the charge sheet and list of witnesses is also annexed as annexure-4 with the charge sheet. The submission of counsel for the applicant is that all the relied upon documents were not provided to the applicant and the witnesses who are mentioned, were not examined as well as not given the opportunity to cross examine. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer while discussion Article II as referred the relevant document and after preliminary inquiry on 14.12.2005, it is revealed that the inquiry was conducted on various dates. The documents which have been referred as well as witnesses are also referred in the inquiry report and in the defence document, two documents namely compromise note dated 24.02.2005 and preliminary inquiry report of Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner, consisting of four pages, were relied upon. In the defence witness, the applicant has called for Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office, Lucknow, which was marked as DW-1. The Inquiry Officer has further observed that the charged official was given adequate opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses as well as his own witness DW-1. The right which was accruing to delinquent employee has been exercised by examining the witness, which is also evident from the inquiry report as well as record of this O.A. The article-I is basically related to attack and beaten Shri A.K. Mishra, TGT (Maths) on 24.02.2005 and further assaulting his wife Smt. Gayatri Mishra on 25.02.2005 while she was roaming for morning walk. Smt. Gayatri Mishra appeared as said witness No. 2 and also cross examined by the delinquent. The independent witnesses were also cross examined and a detailed deliberation has been given by the Inquiry Officer and Shri D.P. Singh, Assistant Commissioner – DW-1 was also examined, as evident from record. After analyzing the facts of case and relied upon documents, the Inquiry Officer proved the article-I of the charges. The article-II is related to wilful insubordination and disobedience of the order of superior authority with utter disregard to the code of conduct and made derogatory remarks to the communication of superior officer. The relied upon documents which have been discussed while considering the article-II, the behaviour and conduct as has been observed by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the observation made by the applicant to the Principal that "You are an idiot Principal", charge No. 2 was also proved. In reply to the charge sheet, the applicant vide letter dated 08.07.2010 has submitted his representation consisting of 48 pages along with 06 annexures. From perusal of representation and grounds taken therein, it is revealed that the same has been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The preliminary objection of the applicant that the inquiry proceeding was enunciated that a written complaint of complainant Smt. Gayatri Mishra W/o Shri A.K. Mishra, T.G.T. Maths. The other point which has been raised by the applicant’s counsel that the charge official demanded through his application the report of preliminary objection made by Shri D.P. Singh, which was subsequently supplied to the applicant. He further pleaded that the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority cannot be relied upon the preliminary inquiry report until and unless author of the same has not been examined. From the record, it appears that the preliminary inquiry was not considered by the Inquiry Officer rather than he has proceeded on the basis of relied upon document and list of witnesses, mentioned in the charge sheet. Moreover, Shri D.P. Singh who was the author of preliminary inquiry was also examined as defence witness. The further objection has been raised is that without giving opportunity, the inquiry was completed. From the record, it appears that the opportunity was given and the persons, who were named in his representation, were also examined by the applicant. Another fact which pleaded with regard to contradictory statements given before the Court of A.C.J.M.-I, Civil Court, Jaunpur by Smt. Gayatri Mishra and before the Inquiry Officer, cannot be accepted in the disciplinary proceeding as Smt. Gayatri Mishra was examined as a witness and the incident which took place against her was also witnessed by some persons names of whom were also provided in the list of witnesses. Further, the disciplinary proceedings are in the nature of preponderance of probability while the criminal proceedings are in the nature ‘prove beyond doubt’, which cannot be equated. We have also gone through the order of Disciplinary Authority where in para-4, the main contention and other submission of charged official has been considered carefully from para-A to para-G and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has held guilty of misconduct and imposed penalty of removal from service vide impugned order dated 18.10.2010. The appeal so raised by the applicant on 19.11.2010 has duly been considered by the Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Commissioner (Admn.) on 20.04.2011 and confirmed the penalty order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
While exercising the power of judicial review of punishment arising out of disciplinary proceeding, is strictly confined to reviewing the decision making process rather than re-adjudicating the merits of case. Scope of judicial review and ground for interference is limited to Tribunal/Courts. It can be interfered with disciplinary proceeding under limited circumstances i.e. violation of natural justice, procedure illegality, no evidence or perverse, lack of jurisdiction or malafide.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Union of India and others V. Dalbir Singh (2021) 11 Supreme Court Cases 321’ has dealt with the similar controversy, as involved in the present O.A. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are quoted herein below: -
“20.A three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh4 was dealing with the issue of non-examination of passengers when the allegation against the conductor was non-issuance of the tickets. This Court held that in a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 493, para 4)
"4.It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The "residuum" rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record."
21.This Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran had laid down the broad parameters for the exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 616-17. paras 12-13)
"12.Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a)the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b)the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c)there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings:
(d)the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case,
(e)the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations,
(f)the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion,
(g)the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h)the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding.
(i)the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13.Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not
(i)re-appreciate the evidence:
(ii)interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law:
(iii)go into the adequacy of the evidence:
(iv)go into the reliability of the evidence:
(v)interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi)correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be,
(vii)go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
22.In another judgment reported as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court held as under: (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13)
"12.Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the enquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold enquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13.The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
From perusal of charge sheet, inquiry report, order of Disciplinary Authority, it appears that there is no procedural illegality in the same and it is also revealed that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the charged official i.e. the applicant.
In view of the above discussion and the legal position settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (suipra), we are in considered opinion that there is no merit in the O.A. and same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of.