Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Govind Ram Yadav And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 2303 Del

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. The respondent No. 1 was working as Assistant Teacher (TGT) in the North Central Railway Inter College which is a school run by the North Central Railway. On 3.7.2003, while taking class IX-C in the 2nd period, he allegedly gave merciless beating to a student named Rinku Kumar because of which Rinku Kumar was physically and mentally disturbed. On receiving a complaint to this effect from the father of Rinku Kumar on 15.7.2003, who met the Principal along with Shri L.N. Ojha, Secretary of NRMU, followed by written narration of the incident by Rinku Kumar himself on 16.7.2003, the matter was enquired into. The respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension, in the meantime, vide orders dated 17.7.2003. The fact finding inquiry allegedly revealed that it was the habit of the respondent No. 1 to give physical punishment to the students of the class and he would generally misbehave with them. He also used to force the students to take private tuitions from him. Formal charge sheet was served upon the respondent levelling three charges, which are as follows:

1. Shri Govind Ram Yadav Asstt. Teacher (TGT)/ Math & Science Sr. Grade Rs. 6500-10500 in NCR Inter College, Tundala on 03.07.2003 during teaching the class of Elementary Math of IX-C gave brutal and merciless beating to Rinku Kumar son of Bal Singh with some ulterior motives.

2. Uttering filthy and unparliamentary language on 3.07.2003 inside the class during teaching hours with the interest of compelling Rinku Kumar to join private tuition at his home.

3. Habitual of misbehaving, beating and compelling his students to join private tuition at his home which has also been alleged by other students of the college Shri Arun Kumar Chaudhary Class X-C.

2. The departmental inquiry was held by an Inquiry Officer who, after holding the inquiry, submitted his report dated 24.9.2004. After discussing the evidence/material produced before the Inquiry Officer and assessing the same in respect of each article and charge, the Inquiry Officer reached the following conclusions in respect of each charge:

1. Charge No. 1 of giving brutal and merciless beating to Rinku Kumar son of Bhal Singh on 03.07.2003 during teaching the class of elementary maths of IX-C is proved fully.

2. Charge No. 2 of uttering filthy language and unparliamentary language on 03.07.2003 inside the class during teaching hours is proved and charge of beating Rinku Kumar with the intent of compelling him to join private tuition at his home is not proved. Thus, charge No. 2 is partially proved.

3. Charge No. 3 of habitual misbehaving beating the students is proved and compelling his students to join private tuition at his home is not proved. Thus charge no.3 is partially proved.

3. It is clear from the above that according to the Inquiry Officer the charge No. 1 is fully proved, whereas charges 2 & 3 were partially proved. After giving opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to make representation against this Inquiry Report, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings and passed orders dated 8.12.2004 inflicting the penalty of removal from service of the respondent No. 1 with immediate effect. Appeal dated 3.1.2005 submitted by the respondent turned futile as it was dismissed on 25.2.2005 by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against such a penalty, the respondent No. 1 preferred application being OA No. 1267/2005 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. This application is allowed by the learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 4.1.2007 and in the present petition assailing that judgment, we are to consider and decide as to whether the impugned order of the Tribunal is valid and justified.

4. Before proceeding further, we may state at the outset that the limited ground on which the impugned penalty order is quashed is that though the Inquiry Officer had concluded that charge No. 3 was partially proved and the charge of habitual misbehaving and beating the student was not proved, the order of the disciplinary authority revealed that the said authority proceeded on the basis that even this charge was proved, which led to imposition of the punishment of removal from service. Thus, the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration extraneous factor. The Tribunal has also opined that the Inquiry Officer merely recorded the conclusion that the charges were proved without supporting his conclusion by reasons and such non-speaking order by the Inquiry Officer vitiated the inquiry. It has also been held by the Tribunal that even the appellate authority had not complied with Rule 22 of the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 as he had not looked into the procedural illegality despite no finding by the Inquiry Officer. He maintained the punishment of habitual misbehavior of the respondent No. 1. The OA was, thus, partly allowed giving the following directions:

12. In the matter of disciplinary proceeding what is precluded in judicial review is reappreciation of evidence but nothing precludes to go into the correctness of decision making process by the quasi judicial authorities. As in the present case there has been no finding on the charge yet the charge is established by the enquiry officer by non-cogent material which had weighed in the mind of the disciplinary authority to impose upon him the extreme penalty. We cannot, at this stage, segregate as to what charge has culminated into its gravest form to sustain the punishment as it is on the composite charges that the punishment of removal has been inflicted.

13. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is partly allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to forthwith reinstate the applicant in service. The interregnum would be operated in accordance with rules and instructions. However, this shall not preclude the respondents, if so advised, to proceed further in the enquiry from the stage of recording of the finding by the enquiry officer and, in such an event, law shall take its own course.

No costs.

5. In a matter like this the first issue which would require consideration would be as to whether the finding recorded by the Inquiry officer in respect of the charges is without reasons, as held by the Tribunal. In this behalf, the learned CAT has concluded as under:

9. The enquiry officer when records his finding to support reasons and merely recording that the charge is proved is not sufficient it has to be established that the charges are conclusively established. Unless the reasons are giving the finding of the enquiry officer would not be in accordance with Railway Rules. Moreover the Apex Court in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India 2002 SCC (L&S) 1028 ruled that evidence must link the officer with the misconduct and has held by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer 1983 SCC (L&S) 813 that non-recording of reasons by the enquiry officer vitiates the enquiry.

6. In order to find out as to whether the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal are correct, we had to go through the Inquiry Report ourselves. We find that the Inquiry Report is discussed under six segments, which are as under:

a) Introduction.

b) Charges against charged employee.

c) defense of the respondent.

d) Assessment of evidence in respect of each article of charge.

e) Finding on each article of charge and reasons thereof.

f) Conclusion.

The aforesaid headings are indicative of the exercise undertaken by the Inquiry Officer. After giving the introduction of the case and reproducing the charges as well as the defense of the respondent in his defense statement dated 29.10.2003 and defense brief dated 18.8.2004 etc. the Inquiry Officer proceeded to make assessment of evidence. He took each article of charge separately and discussed the evidence which was led in support of those charges.

7. Insofar as the incident of beating Rinku Kumar on 3.7.2003 is concerned, he recorded that there were four students who had deposed that the incident was not true as against 25 students who gave their statement to the effect that the incident of beating Rinku Kumar was factually correct. The Inquiry Officer has reproduced in brief the statements of all those students and, thereafter, while recording his findings, he has discussed this evidence and on the basis of preponderance of evidence, he concluded that charge of beating Rinku Kumar mercilessly on 3.7.2003 and abusing him was proved.

Same method is adopted while discussing charges 2 & 3. Statement of various students, who had deposed that the respondent No. 1 had uttered filthy and unparliamentary language on 3.7.2003 inside the class during teaching hours was proved on the basis of evidence of those students. However, in respect of the 2nd component of charge No. 2, namely, he had given beatings to Rinku Kumar with an intention to compel him to join private tuitions at his home, the same was not proved according to the Inquiry Officer and in this behalf he has analysed the evidence on record and found that the statement of Rinku Kumar on this aspect cannot be believed.

8. Likewise, the report of the Inquiry Officer has given reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was habitually misbehaving and beating the students. However, the 2nd component of this Charge No. 3 was held to be not proved. The Inquiry Officer opined that the respondent No. 1 was not compelling the students to join private tuitions.

9. On going through this report, one cannot say that the Inquiry Report is without any reasons. Insofar as charge No. 1 is concerned, it relates to giving brutal and merciless beating given to Rinku Kumar on 3.7.2003. Part of charge No. 2, namely, using of filthy and unparliamentary language inside the class during teaching hours on 3.7.2003 is proved. Similarly, part of charge No. 3 which is proved is that the respondent No. 1 was habitually misbehaving and beating the students. Thus, charge No. 1 and the two component of charges 2 & 3 which are proved are related to each other. Other components of charge Nos. 2 & 3, which are not proved, again form one species, namely, beating Rinku Kumar with an intent to compel him to join private tuitions at his home. Holding of these charges as not proved goes to the advantage of the respondent No. 1 for which, obviously, the respondent cannot have any grievance.

10. It is trite law that though the Inquiry Officer is to give reasons, he is not supposed to write the Inquiry Report as a judgment of the court. When the Inquiry Officer found sufficient evidence to prove a particular charge and narrated that evidence, we fail to understand as to how such a report can be dubbed as non-speaking. This part of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, is not proper.

11. Taking into consideration the charges as held proved and partly not proved, we proceed to discuss the second aspect, namely, as to whether the disciplinary authority took into consideration the charge which was not proved as proved and imposed the punishment. The operative portion of the order of the disciplinary authority is as under:

I found the following facts specifically according to the findings of Inquiry Officer:

(i) The charge against charged official of beating and abusing Shri Rinku Kumar (a student of Class-IX'C'/NCRIC/TDL) mercilessly on 3.7.2003 with ulterior motive, which have fully been proved by Inquiry Officer on the basis of deposition of Prosecution Witnesses.

(ii) The charge of uttering filthy & unparliamentary language on 3.7.2003 inside the classroom is also proved by Inquiry Officer.

(iii) The charge of habitual misbehaving and beating the students has also been proved.

On going through entire enquiry proceedings including those of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidences the charges have been proved beyond doubt and it is based on correct appraisal of facts & materials. I have also gone through the defense of charge official and see no reason to hold that there has been any procedural flaw and irregularities as most of his objections are technical in nature e.g. he has taken the plea that it was necessary that in the preliminary enquiry Principal should have been called nor did he make even a single representation for bias or prejudice against the Inquiry Officer during the entire enquiry proceedings.

Thus there is no basis to differ from finding of Inquiry Officer therefore, it is acceptable and is being accepted by me.

12. On the aforesaid order the Tribunal remarked:

10. Insofar as disciplinary authority is concerned, he cannot impute his own knowledge to arrive at a finding of guilt though it is incumbent upon him to record reasons but these reasons should be in context with the finding. We find non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority whereas there is no finding on the charges established by him yet on no evidence and extraneous material a punishment has been imposed which cannot be countenanced in the light of decision of Apex Court in Director Marketing Indian Oil v. Santosh Kumar .

13. Once we hold that the report of the Inquiry Officer is supported by reasons, the only question which remains to be examined, insofar as the order passed by the disciplinary authority is concerned, is as to whether he has imposed punishment on the basis of a charge which was not established. We find that the disciplinary authority has specifically mentioned which charges are proved. These clearly are charge No. 1 and parts of charges 2 & 3 which are held to be proved. Much ado was made by the respondent's counsel submitting that the charge of habitual misbehaving and beating the students has not been proved as there was no evidence in support thereof.

This is, however, not correct. The report of the Inquiry Officer discloses that Shri V.K. Srivastava, Asstt. Teacher (TGT) had deposed that he was hearing allegations of beating students by the respondent No. 1 since 2001. Another witness Shri Roshan (Peon) also deposed to the effect that he heard from students regarding beating of students and bad behavior of the respondent No. 1 towards them. Out of 25 students of Class IX-C who have deposed during the inquiry proceedings that incident of bearing Rinku Kumar on 3.7.2003 is true. Most of them have deposed that elementary Maths was taught by the respondent No. 1 on 3.7.2003. Hence, the contention of the respondent No. 1 that he had not taught elementary Maths to Class IX-C on 3.7.2003 is incorrect. As per deposition of the PWs, the respondent No. 1 had taught elementary Maths on 3.7.2003 as per old time table in 6th period in the hall of school.

14. Further, the Inquiry Officer in his report has also mentioned that out of 25 students, who have deposed during inquiry proceedings, mostly have deposed that the respondent No. 1 used to beat the students mercilessly. Thus, it cannot be said that this finding is arrived at without any evidence. Once the matter is examined in this perspective, we do not find any fault with the order of the Inquiry Officer. This would automatically take care of the comments of the Tribunal qua the orders of the appellate authority inasmuch as the order of the appellate authority is faulted on the premise that he did not look into the procedural illegality despite no finding by the Inquiry Officer that the charge of habitual misbehavior and use of unparliamentary language were not sustainable.

15. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal does not stand judicial scrutiny and the conclusions of the Tribunal were clearly erroneous and misreading of report of the Inquiry Officer as well as the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. We, therefore, make the rule absolute. This writ petition is allowed and the consequence would be to dismiss the OA filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.