Allahabad High Court
The Joint Commissioner (Admn.)/ ... vs Vs Shah Tgt Maths Jawahar Navodaya ... on 17 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90896-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7683 of 2024
Petitioner :- The Joint Commissioner (Admn.)/ Appellate Authority And 3 Others
Respondent :- Vs Shah TGT Maths Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahjahanpur
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Shahjahanpur (in short 'J.N.V.') is the order dated 01.11.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (in short 'Tribunal') whereby the original application preferred by Sri V.S. Shah TGT Maths (in short 'teacher') questioning the order dated 17.06.2008 and 25.09.2012 was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case sans unnecessary details are that the respondent-teacher claims to have been working as TGT (Maths) in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Lakhimpur Khiri, U.P. On 18.11.1997, he came to be transferred and posted as TGT (Maths) in JNV, Shahjahanpur on 11.12.2000. It is also the case of the respondent-teacher that in the newly transferred place, J.N.V. Shahjahanpur there were large scale misappropriation and irregularities committed by the officiating principal who wanted commission in every transactions and when the respondent-teacher protested against the same, while making complaint to the higher authorities then the officiating Principal and the other functionaries became infuriated pursuant thereto they started harassing the respondent-teacher while transferring him four times in a short span of period. Confronted with the same, the respondent-teacher claimed to have preferred O.A. No. 380 of 2003 (Vijay Shankar Sah Vs. Union of India) in which an interim order was granted on 17.04.2003, whereby his transfer was stayed. It is further pleaded that further annoyed with the legal action taken by the respondent-teacher, a charge memorandum dated 10.01.2004 containing as many as three charges was served upon the respondent-teacher on 03.02.2004. Since according to the respondent-teacher, the charges were false and frivolous so he preferred representation/objection dated 10/12.02.2012 before the petitioners herein coming up with a stand that he had at no point of time committed any misconduct warranting holding of disciplinary proceedings and the charges were relatable to those works which were not entrusted to him.
3. Pleadings further reveal that the respondent-teacher was placed under suspension and despite a request letter moved by the respondent-teacher for change of the Inquiry Officer, the same was not attended to. It is also alleged that the inquiry proceedings were conducted de hors the rules and in violation of principles of natural justice without furnishing the copy of the documents which were made the basis of bringing home the charges and post service of the show cause notice along with the inquiry report dated 29.06.2006, without considering the reply submitted by the respondent-teacher on 18.11.2006, an order is stated to have been passed by the disciplinary authority, Deputy Commissioner of N.V.S. (L.R.), Lucknow, second respondent, whereby the pay of the respondent-teacher was reduced at the minimum stage i.e. Rs. 5,500/- in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with effect from 01.07.2008 postponing the future increments of pay. Against the punishment order, departmental appeal is stated to have been preferred by the respondent-teacher before the appellate authority, Joint Commissioner (Admn.), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, first respondent which came to be rejected on 25.09.2012.
4. Challenging the punishment as well as the appellate order the respondent-teacher preferred O.A. No. 275 of 2023 before the Tribunal which on contest, came to be decided by the Tribunal on 01.11.2023, whereby the punishment as well as the appellate orders were set aside, making the respondent-teacher admissible to consequential benefits @ 6% interest within a period of four months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order.
5. Assailing the order dated 01.11.2023 of the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has sought to argue that the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 275 of 2023 cannot be sustained for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that a charge memorandum was served upon the respondent-teacher on 10.01.2004 containing three charges, firstly, irregularity committed by the respondent-teacher with regard to scrutiny of application forms of Block Banda and doubtful cases of Block Hathoda Bujurg, wherein six candidates were deprived of their genuine admissions maligning the image of the Principal on caste discrimination being a conduct unbecoming of a teacher, secondly, engaging himself in meeting and demonstration at district headquarters on 10.12.2002 tarnishing the image of the Principal of the Vidyalaya and thirdly, writing complaint letters to the higher authorities against his immediate officers by-passing the prescribed channel.
7. Submission is that the charges levelled upon the respondent-teacher were proved and grave, the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. It is also being submitted that there was ample evidence available before the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority relatable to the fact that the respondent-teacher was entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing the application forms of Block Banda and doubtful cases of block Hathoda Bujurg and thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent-teacher was not handed over the charge relatable to scrutinizing the application forms of Block Hathoda is preposterous.
8. Additionally, it has been argued that, in case, according to the respondent-teacher the inquiry was conducted in a manner which was not specified in the rules and there was violation of principles of natural justice then it was not open for the Tribunal to have forbidden the right of the writ petitioners to conduct inquiry from the stage when the defect occurred. It is, thus, prayed that the writ petition be allowed while setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
9. Countering the said submission, Sri V.S. Shah, respondent in person has submitted that the order of the Tribunal needs no interference in the present proceedings. According to him, the Tribunal has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has recorded a categorical finding that the charges had no legs to stand particularly in view of the fact that the respondent-teacher was not entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing the application form of Block Hathoda Bujurg as the said work was entrusted to one Sri B.C. Joshi. He further submits that there was a clear deposition of Sri B.C. Joshi during the cross examination which beyond the shadow of doubt indicated that the respondent-teacher had no role to play with regard to scrutinizing of application forms of Hathoda Bujurg. As regards the charge No. 2, he submits that the respondent-teacher at no point of time engaged itself in meeting and held demonstration at District Headquarters. It is submitted that there is no evidence worth consideration to show the involvement of the respondent-teacher as one of the witnesses during his cross-examination, D.D. Sharma S.W. 5, only deposed this much that he saw the respondent-teacher coming on scooter on his way near Brick Kiln though he tried to stop the respondent-teacher but the respondent-teacher did not pause and proceeded towards the town and thereafter, the said witness further deposed that some students assembled near SC/ST Hostel with banner. It is the submission of the counsel for the respondent-teacher that there is no evidence so as to link the respondent-teacher to have participated as he was never a part of the demonstration. With respect to charge No. 3, it has been argued that the respondent-teacher had only written letters so as to bring to the knowledge of the higher authorities the misappropriation and the irregularities committed in the institution which cannot be a ground to infer that the respondent- teacher indulged in misconduct.
10. Lastly, it has been argued that the entire disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice as though reliance has been placed upon certain documents to bring home the charge but the same despite request was not furnished.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
12. Undisputedly, a charge sheet dated 10.01.2004 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is stated to have been served upon the respondent teacher on 03.02.2024 containing as many as three charges. According to the first charge, the respondent teacher who was associated that Ms. Asha Verma TGT (English) was entrusted with the duty of scrutiny of application forms of Block Banda and doubtful cases of Block Hathoda Bujurg. The respondent-teacher entertained the application of one Sri Sachin Pal Singh of Block Banda whose photograph was not attested, however, he did not entertain application form of six candidates of Block Hathoda Bujurg in the similar circumstances which deprived six girls of their admission in JNVST-2002 resulting in maligning the image of the Principal on caste discrimination.
13. The second charge is that the respondent-teacher while functioning at JNV Shahjahanpur engaged himself in the meeting and demonstration at District Headquarters on 11.10.2002 and tarnished the image of the Principal of the Vidyalaya and likewise the third charge is in relation to the misconduct by the respondent-teacher while functioning at JNV Shahjahanpur while writing a fault finding letter to the higher officials against his immediate controlling officers by-passing the prescribed channel which is an act of indiscipline. An Inquiry Officer was appointed though the respondent-teacher doubted his integrity while writing request letters for replacing the Inquiry Officer, however, the Inquiry Officer tendered his report on 29.06.2006 along with a show cause notice to which the respondent- teacher submitted his reply/objection on 18.11.2006 and on 17.06.2008 the punishment order was passed, appeal whereof was rejected on 22.09.2012. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment had come to the conclusion that the respondent-teacher was at no point of time entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing the application forms of Block Hathoda Bujurg while giving credence to the cross examination of Sri B.C. Joshi S.W. 6, wherein on a specific question being question No. 3 "which all blocks applications were given to you for scrutinizing" a reply was given by him "Hathoda Bujurg और शायद कोई दूसरा ब्लॉक भी था". The Tribunal, thus, came to the conclusion that there was no material available on record to show that respondent-teacher was entrusted with duty of said block.
14. We made a pointed query to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, whether there exists any evidence to show that the respondent-teacher was entrusted with the duty to scrutinize application forms of Block Hathoda Bujurg, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners could not point out anything from the record. However, according to him, the charge was entrusted to the respondent-teacher for Block- Banda and doubtful cases of Block Hathoda Bujurg.
15. In the opinion of the Court, once Sri B.C. Joshi S.W. 6 who happens to be a prosecution witness has himself specifically deposed that he was handed over the charge of Block Hathoda Bujurg and there is no evidence available on record so as to indicate or suggest that the respondent-teacher was handed over the charge of the said block, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said charge stood proved.
16. Insofar as the second charge is concerned, the Tribunal has dealt with the said issue extensively. The Tribunal based upon the statement of S.W. 5, D.D. Sharma who happens to be the prosecution witness came to the conclusion that there was no direct link so as to rope the respondent-teacher. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that Sri D.D. Sharma S.W. 5, had deposed that he was going towards the Town in his two wheeler vehicle and near the Brick Kiln, he saw the respondent-teacher coming on scooter from the opposite direction even though he tried to stop him but the respondent-teacher did not stop and he went towards the Town and saw some students near the SC/ST Hostel with the banner against the Principal of the Navodaya Vidyalaya flashing objectionable material. According to the Tribunal, there was no evidence so as to show involvement of the respondent-teacher. With regard to charge No. 3, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the same is also not proved as no misconduct whatever has been committed by the respondent-teacher particularly when the said communications made by the respondent-teacher to the higher authorities was to apprise them about the factual situation prevalent in the institution in question.
17. We have also gone through the pleadings in the writ petition and find that there is no specific ground raised in the petition so as to show any perversity in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal being the Court of the first instance has meticulously analysed the facts of the case and has recorded a categorical finding in favour of the respondent-teacher.
18. Nonetheless, the Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal particularly when nothing substantial has been brought on record so as to hold otherwise.
19. Pertinently, the Tribunal has adverted to the legality of the inquiry proceedings also and came to the conclusion that there was procedural infirmities in holding the inquiry. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has impressed upon the fact that in the cases of procedural infirmities in the inquiry, the proper course would have been to direct the petitioners to conduct de novo inquiry but the same would not be of much relevance particularly in view of the testimony of the prosecution witness which does not infer or impel the Court to direct for holding de novo inquiry.
20. Viewing the case from all angles, we do not find any illegality committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference in the present proceedings.
21. Resultantly, the writ petition sans merit, it is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
