Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balraj Singh vs Presiding Officer Ld. Educational ... on 4 April, 2024
CM-4734-C WP-2024 in/and 1 CWP-3778-2023 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:045508 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.103 CM-4734-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-3778-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.04.2024 Balraj Singh .... Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Ld. Educational Tribunal, Gurugram and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA Present: Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. 3 2k 3 TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
CM-4734-C WP-2024 and CM-803-C WP-2024 For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The order dated 18.12.2023 passed in the main petition is recalled. Accordingly, the main petition is restored and taken on Board today itself.
CWP-3778-2023 The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the judgment dated 14.10.2022, Annexure P-12, passed by the District Judge-cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram, as also the order dated 22.05.2019, Annexure P-11, whereby petitioner's services were terminated.
2. Learned counsel contends that the enquiry against the petitioner was not properly conducted, the findings are only based upon statements of official witnesses. No video recordings of the incidents have been produced by the management. In these circumstances, there was no basis to conclude misconduct on the petitioner's part, nor could any action on that basis have been taken by the management.
MANINDER 2024.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.CM-4734-C WP-2024 in/and 2 CWP-3778-2023 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:045508
3. A perusal of the Tribunal's judgment shows that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 04.09.2018. He filed a reply to the same denying the allegations on 06.09.2018. Thereupon, an enquiry officer was appointed on 26.09.2018, who conducted the regular enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was given assistance of a representative on his asking. He along with his representative did appear before the enquiry officer but failed to lead any evidence in defence. Accordingly, enquiry officer gave findings on the basis of the statements of the witnesses produced, holding that charges stood proved against the petitioner. After considering the relevant facts as well as findings of the enquiry, the order of termination, dated 22.05.2019, has been passed. There is nothing on record to establish that due procedure was not followed by the management before taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. In fact, opportunity of hearing was duly afforded to him to establish his case, but he failed to do that.
4. In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of termination. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 04.04.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2024.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.