AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this petition, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the order dated 1.8.2014 passed in O.A.No. 1442 of 2011 and the order dated 29.9.2014 passed in Review Application No. 35 of 2014 by the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner as well as the review application were dismissed.
The petitioner, while working as Primary School Teacher, was dismissed from service by order dated 7.7.2010 on account of the charges of remaining absent without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority and also continuing the MCA course without permission despite the clear order to join service. The order of dismissal was confirmed by the impugned order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the Principal Secretary/ second respondent. The revision petition filed thereafter was also dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the original application, seeking for quashing the order dated 21.7.2010 as well as the order passed by the reviewing authority on 16.2.2011.
It is needless to state that the petitioner has not challenged the first order of dismissal dated 7.7.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal, after having examined all the facts and considering the submissions advanced by both parties, recorded the finding that the petitioner, after having joined as Primary School Teacher (in short �PST�), completed the probation in 2002. Thereafter, without taking permission of the authorities, on the basis of his application, proceeded to pursue his MCA course. The petitioner participated in the examination for admission to MCA course on 22.7.2007. Thereafter, having come to know that permission of the competent authority was required to pursue the higher studies, he made an application on 8.8.2007, requesting grant of permission to attend the counseling for admission to MCA course. Subsequently, on 9.8.2007, he submitted his leave application, seeking leave from 22.8.2007. The 4th respondent vide order dated 4.12.2007, sanctioned leave from 22.8.2007 to 7.12.2007 and directed the petitioner to join service forthwith. The petitioner did not pay any heed to the order of the authorities and failed to report back for duty. Thereafter, again a memo was issued on 7.1.2008, directing him to join duty. The petitioner did not pay any attention to the said memo also.
Having regard to the aforestated absence without permission and also joining course without permission of the competent authority, a charge memo was issued on 8.4.2008 as under :
"The said Thiru K.Senthilkumar PST, GPS Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry, DIS Zone I had attended entrance exam in Puducherry Engineering College, Puducherry without obtaining proper permission from the competent Authority. His conduct is unbecoming of Govt. servant and is against clause (iii) of sub rule (1) of Rule 3 of Central Services (Conduct) Rule 1964.
The said Thiru K.Senthilkumar, GPS Ganapathichettikulam, Puducherry, DIS Zone I, had applied for post facto permission after attending the entrance exam for having undergone MCA and to attended counseling. But his request had been turned down by the DDE(Admn) stating that such permission to undergo Degree courses through Regular stream will not be granted. Then he had again requested permission to join the course along with the requisition of EOL from 22/08/07 to 22/2/08. His request had again been returned unaccepted. He was informed that his study permission had not been granted and the leave applied for by him had not been sanctioned beyond 7/12/07 and he should not continue his studies (if he already joined the course) and report for duty on or before 7.1.08. But the memo had been returned unclaimed. Then he had been informed that as he has refused to receive the Memo and not reported for duty, it has been decided to initiate disciplinary action against him. Inspite of the instruction he did not resume his duties and remained absent to duty. Thus he has been neglecting his duties for the sake of his studies. Hence his conduct is unbecoming of Govt. Servant thereby violating the sub Rule 1(i), and (iii) of Rule 3 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964."
A proper enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, after having afforded proper opportunity of hearing, found both charges proved and observed in his enquiry report as under :
"The inquiry Authority was issued notice to the charged official to attend the preliminary hearing on 30.7.2008. But Thiru.K.Senthilkumar, PST, (The Charged Officer) has not turned up enquiry on that day and time fixed by the enquiring authority. However, the inquiry authority fixed a date of next hearing and intimated the same to the charged official. On receipt of the Daily Order Sheet dated 30.07.2008. Thiru K.Senthilkumar PST the charged official and Thiru Kumaran, Assistant, Office of the Chief Educational Officer (The Presenting Officer) appeared in person. At the first instance of the preliminary enquiry the documents were verified by the charged official. The inquiry Authority asked question to the charged official whether he denies or accepts the Article of charges II and I. The charged official has accepts the charges in full.
Therefore, the inquiry Authority considers that according to Rule, once the charges were accepted, the oral enquiry is not necessary in this case. As such charges levelled against the charged official were accepted and the charge I and II are stands ''PROVED''.
Based on the enquiry report and after giving him opportunity, the impugned order dated 7.7.2009 removing the petitioner from service was passed. There against, a review was filed and the same was also dismissed by order dated 16.2.2011. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed in the appeal as well as in the review, but not the original order of dismissal, dated 7.7.2009.
The Tribunal dismissed the original application holding as under :
"13....The applicant had continued to remain absent from duty to pursue the MCA course which has resulted in the disciplinary proceedings and eventual dismissal from service. A perusal of records also would go to show that the applicant has not even responded to the inquiry officer''s report wherein he was required to submit his explanation within 15 days to the inquiry officer''s report and he has not submitted his response at all. Hence the Disciplinary Authority has issued the order of dismissal on 07.07.2009. The records also show that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have issued speaking and reasoned orders while confirming the penalty imposed. From the records, it is clear that the applicant has shown scant regard for the rules and orders issued by the respondents repeatedly informing him that the study leave could not be granted to him and directing him to join duty. The clear indication is that the applicant was determined to pursue his studies irrespective of the consequences that may arise in his employment as a Primary School Teacher and from the year 2007 the applicant is out of service."
A review was preferred against the said order, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.9.2014.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also examined all the facts of the case and the provisions of law.
It is indisputable that the petitioner had left the service without permission of the competent authority for pursuing higher studies, i.e., MCA. The fact remains that the petitioner, who is involved in the noble job of teaching the students, remained absent without permission for advancement of his personal knowledge. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to join back immediately, which petitioner failed to comply and completed his course. As per the service law, a person, who has no respect for the work assigned to him and also takes decision on his own for remaining absent and pursuing the course without following proper procedure and also without taking proper permission, cannot be allowed to continue in service. The petitioner has not challenged the process of enquiry on any ground, i.e., whether the finding was perverse or principle of natural justice was not followed or any other permissible ground. Thus, the enquiry report is final and the subsequent punishment imposed on the basis of the enquiry report is also proper in view of the responsibility and duties of the petitioner. We are of the view that the punishment was not disproportionate as the action of the petitioner, as aforestated, amounts to serious misconduct, which may result into dismissal from service. Thus, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view to that of the Tribunal.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had gone for higher studies, which may be of help to the institution and also to students. Without going into the merits of the case, seemingly MCA may not be of very relevant for primary school students. Even if it may be of some help, the same cannot be permitted, as indiscipline leads to chaos and anarchy. This cannot be permitted in any establishment, particular in schools, where the first lesson taught to students is discipline and values.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.