AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present petition challenges the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by respondent No.1, the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner'), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against came to be rejected. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 29.06.2022 by which penalty of stoppage of two increments has been imposed on him.
The facts as emerging from the petition is as follows :
The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Teacher under Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, Akola. The petitioner was suspended on 28.09.2020 by order dated 28.09.2020 on complaints made against him by two Zilla Parishad Members and members of the School Committee, alleging misappropriation, misconduct and dereliction of duty.
The petitioner was served with a copy of the statement of allegations, to which he submitted a reply on 27.11.2020 denying the allegations and pointing out that the relevant documents and material relied upon against him had not been furnished. According to the petition, no regular departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and no Enquiry Officer was appointed or opportunity of hearing was afforded to him.
On 16.12.2021, the Block Education Officer submitted a report concerning the allegations to the Deputy Education Officer, which was thereafter communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner, by his explanation dated 20.01.2022, raised a specific grievance that copies of depositions and other documents relied upon in the proceedings had not been supplied to him. Thereafter, the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Akola submitted an enquiry report dated 08.04.2022, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.
On 24.05.2022, a final show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing stoppage of two increments permanently. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.06.2022, denying the charges and disputing the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter, Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola passed an order dated 29.06.2022 imposing the penalty of permanent stoppage of two increments upon the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently sought a copy of the enquiry report and other relevant documents by representation dated 25.07.2022.
Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 29.06.2022, the petitioner preferred an appeal under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 before Respondent No.1-Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, which was registered as Appeal No.21/ZPS/Akola/2023.
By order dated 15.05.2024, Respondent No.1 rejected the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the penalty imposed by Respondent No.2. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority failed to properly consider the material on record and passed a cryptic and non-speaking order. It is further contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the applicable disciplinary rules, particularly as the documents relied upon and enquiry material were not supplied, and no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated 29.06.2022 and 15.05.2024, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard Mr. R.D. Karode, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Jaipurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, and Ms. M.R. Kavimandan, learned Assistant Government pleader for the respondent No. 1.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 29.06.2022 and 15.05.2024 have been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and without following the procedure prescribed under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. It is contended that the petitioner was not supplied with the copies of complaints, documents and enquiry material. The petitioner was also not afforded an effective opportunity to inspect the record or defend himself.
The learned counsel further submits that the penalty of permanent stoppage of two increments amounts to a major penalty and could not have been imposed without conducting a regular departmental enquiry in accordance with law. It is urged that no Enquiry Officer was appointed, no witnesses were examined and no proper hearing was conducted. The written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner was also not duly considered by the disciplinary authority.
It is further submitted that the enquiry report does not record specific findings with reasons in respect of each charge and the same was not furnished to the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that even the record of enquiry was not maintained in accordance with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner's repeated requests for documents and inspection of the record, including his application under the Right to Information Act, were not duly considered by the authorities.
In the backdrop of these facts, I have perused the material on record with the able guidance of the counsel for the parties. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner was suspended on 28.09.2020 and was relieved from his duty with effect from 08.10.2020 and was instructed to join the office at Telhara with effect from 09.10.2020. The counsel for the petitioner contends that no copy of the complaint filed by one Amrapali Avinash Khandare and one Pragati Dandale, which forms the basis of the suspension order, was supplied to him. As can be seen, even after repeated demands from the petitioner with respect to the delivery of the copy of the complaint and relevant documents, the same was not supplied to him and is in breach of the principles of natural justice.
The respondents have not taken any cognizance of the repeated demand of the petitioner for supply of copy to the petitioner, which caused grave prejudice to the petitioner. This act, in our view, is serious and cannot be brushed aside lightly.
Another aspect which was thrown light upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry was conducted and completed without examining any witnesses and without according an equitable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Also, the charges stated in the statement of allegations are not definitive and are vague. The enquiry report also does not record any findings in relation to the charges framed. This, in my view, is unsustainable in law.
As far as the order dated 29.06.2022 is concerned, no proper procedure was ollowed for imposing a penalty of debarring two increments permanently, which is a major punishment as per Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
O R D E R
The writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned order dated 15.05.2024, passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. Likewise, the enquiry proceedings till date are also quashed and set aside.
The impugned order dated 29.06.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. The enquiry report dated 8.4.2022 is quashed and set aside.
The respondent/Zilla Parishad is free to commence a de-novo enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor, on the basis of statement of allegations.
Needless to mention that the petitioner would be supplied with all the documents/material being produced in the enquiry and he would be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondents as also examine the witnesses on his behalf.
Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.