Delhi High Court
Francis Fanthome vs Council For The I.C.S.E. And Ors. on 13 February, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
CM No. 1761/2006
1. Issue notice. Mr. Raj Shekher Rao, learned counsel waives notice and states that the application can be considered without filing a reply.
2. In the writ petition, the applicant has challenged the initiation of an enquiry into his conduct by the respondent board on various grounds including (but not limited) to the competence of the board vis-a-vis the regulations as also upon allegations of mala fides made against various persons which include 5th respondent who was nominated as a one man sub-committee to enquire into the various aspects and submit a report.
3. When the petition was heard for preliminary hearing and notice issued, the applicant had moved CM No. 9951/2005 leveling allegations of mala fide against the said respondent. By a detailed reasoned order dated 5th September, 2005, that application was rejected. It appears that the applicant/petitioner carried the order in an interlocutory appeal to the Division Bench which rejected the same. By the present application, the relief claimed is more or less similar; however the grounds are, to a certain extent different. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the fresh or subsequent material have surfaced, necessitating a new look into the matter and such materials conclusively establish that the 8th respondent is motivated and has acted in a biased manner.
4. In the main, the submissions centered around certain letters such as the communication dated 27th June, 2005 and three notices issued to various schools by the 8th respondent on 13th October, 2005. It was submitted that these betrayed a pre-dispositive proctivity to pre-judge the issues and somehow return a finding adverse to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner laid great emphasis on certain expressions on the notices issued to the three different schools on 13th October, 2005. He submitted that the pharasology used was that prima facie mis-conduct, as alleged 'stood proved' according to the enquiry officer. This, it was submitted, showed his frame of mind to return a finding of mis-conduct in the proceedings primarily meant to gather facts. It was submitted that the proceeding was merely an eye wash. Learned counsel also relied upon a letter dated 2nd December, 2005 written by the enquiry officer in reply to a letter of one Ms. G.R. Hart, who is respondent in these proceedings. In that document, the enquiry officer had remarked that the investigation had thrown up lot of cogent and conclusive evidence and that if the proceedings had been a criminal trial for corruption, the record amply justified a conviction.
5. Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that a situation has altered in the manner and that the observations of this Court in paragraph 14 and 15 of the interim order dated 5th September, 2005 applied with equal force even on the materials sought to be relied upon in support of this application. He submitted that this Court had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rev. B.P. Sugandhar Bishop In Medak v. D. Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser to say that even where there are allegations of mala fides concerning the conduct of preliminary investigation into alleged mis-conduct, the Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to interdict the proceedings. It was submitted that the board was in no manner obliged to involve the petitioner in the preliminary facts gathering exercise which could have been validly and independently conducted. Having involved the petitioner, the enquiry officer had to seek or elicit information from various quarters. Learned counsel submitted that the choice of words or expression used in letters or notices may be objectionable to the petitioner. However, it is submitted that they cannot be seen in isolation and are to be viewed in the context of the over-all information sought to be gathered.
6. The learned counsel also pointed out to various letters and communication exchanged between the petitioner and the enquiry officer in which the former was informed about the draft or tentative charges and asked to respond during the course of such exercise, the petitioner elicited materials and had approached this Court, with a view to re-agitate all the issued that had been considered and rejected.
7. I have gone through the materials placed on record in support of the application. The original petitioner runs into about 220 pages. The application along with its annexures almost equals that size. It appears that the petitioner is seeking to re-agitate all issues that had been considered by the Court while rejecting its initial prayer for stay of the proceedings. The nature of the enquiry remains the same; it is preliminary and no material was brought to my notice to show that the enquiry officer was empowered to conduct anything more than merely a fact gathered exercise.
8. Learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the notices issued to three schools on 13th October, 2005 and letter written on 2nd December, 2005 to the 6th respondent to say that the 8th respondent, a retired High Court Judge, is biased against him. Although, the phraseology adopted may be inapt and was perhaps avoidable, nevertheless in my opinion, the tenor of these documents is clear; the enquiry officer merely sought to elicit information and responded to the letter of the sixth respondent. I have also examined the tentative show cause notice and the correspondence between the petitioner and the 8th respondent during the end of October and the 1st week of November. The 8th respondent has taken considerable pains to point out that all issues are open for investigation and it is open to the petitioner to take all defenses in response to the tentative charges.
9. Having considered the submissions and the materials on record, I am of the view that this application has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. The respondent board is however directed to make a copy of the report available to the petitioner if it decide to initiate any action or disciplinary proceedings against him after consideration of that report.
