Mrs. Lalita Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 744 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Decided on: February 8, 2011

+     WP (C) No. 791 of 2011

      Mrs. Lalita Singh                                ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr.K. Venkatraman, Advocate

             versus

      Lt. Governor of Delhi and others                 ..... Respondents

Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia with Ms.Sidhi Arora, Advs. Resp. 2 & 3

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

DIPAK MISRA, CJ

Before we advert to the nature of challenge of the order in question

and the factual matrix, we have thought it seemly to dwell upon the

signification of education and the role of a teacher and more so a teacher

who is engaged to impart training to the mentally retarded school

children, as the gravity of the role gets accentuated because of the delicate

nature of duty.

2. It is worth nothing that education makes a man a complete human

being in its conceptual essence and connotative continuum. In the days of

yore, a realised poet Bhartruhari sang in the glory of 'Vidya' in the

following terms:-

"VIDYA NAAM NARASYA ROOPAMADHIKAM PRACHHANNA GUPTAM DHANAM VIDYA BHOGAKARI YAASHAH SUKHAKARIYI VIDYA GURUNAM GURUH VIDYA BANDHUJANO VIDESHGAMANE VIDYAPARAM DAIVATAM VIDYA RAJASUPUJYATE NAHI DHANAM VIDYA BIHINAH PASHUH."

A free translation of the aforesaid verse would mean that education is the

most resplendent exposition of a man and in it inheres the concept of

quintessential treasure. It is the bedrock of all happiness, fame and

pleasure. Education is the preceptor of the teacher and acts as a dear friend

in travel and is the supreme God, the creative intelligence. It is education

but not money which is honoured and respected in the royal assembly. For

these reasons, a man without education is equated with an animal.

3. It is education, the real hidden treasure in a man, which comes to

his aid. Not for nothing it has been said that the process of evolution from

ignorance to knowledge, from knowledge to wisdom and from wisdom to

understanding of consciousness takes place through education which is

regarded as a part of divine attainment. It is education which teaches

purity of mind, righteousness of conduct and truthfulness of soul. If we

allow ourselves to say so, education has the potentiality of

metamorphosing eternal passion to everlasting sublimation and eternal

pain to permanent peace.

4. In our Shastras and traditions, the teachers or the gurus have been

put on a pedestal on the basis of the principle that they had been ascribed

the role AGYAN TIMIRANDHASYA GNYANANJAN SALAKYA since ages.

It is the obligation of a teacher to nurture the mind of a student. The

society expects and, rightly so, an impeccable conduct, sacred devotion to

duty and unimpeachable behaviour from teacher.

5. With the aforesaid prefatory note, we would like to proceed to deal

with the assail of the order impugned, factual score and the legal issues.

The legal substantiability and acceptability of the order dated 29 th

November, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal

Bench, New Delhi (for short „the tribunal‟) in TA No. 1480/2009 is called

in question by the petitioner in invocation of jurisdiction of this Court

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The factual exposé, as unfurled, is that the petitioner joined one of

the schools run by the NDMC for mentally retarded children, situate at

Kautilya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi on 14th July, 1995 as Games-

cum-Yoga teacher. As alleged, on 31st July, 2001, during the school

hours, she called two mentally retarded students, in the sports room of the

school and directed them to get involved in the sexual act. The concerned

Principal of the school was apprised by the petitioner that she was making

an effort to develop awareness of sex among the mentally retarded

students. An investigation was carried out wherein the young girl

reiterated the statement and eventually an inquiry under Rule 14 of the

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (for short „the 1965 Rules‟) was initiated against

the petitioner. In course of inquiry, some witnesses including the parents

of the children were examined and ultimately the Inquiry Officer found

the charges leveled against her proven. She visited with the penalty of

dismissal, which was challenged in appeal, but the same did not meet with

success. After being unsuccessful in appeal, the petitioner had

approached this Court in WP (C) No. 2689/2008, which was subsequently

transferred to the tribunal and was numbered as TA No. 1480/2009.

7. Before the tribunal it was contended that the Principal of the school

had always harboured a bias towards the petitioner and hence, she had

been falsely implicated; that the statements of the mentally retarded

children could not have been lent any credence as they do not have the

mental faculty to articulate what had happened; that the statements of the

witnesses were fabricated; and that the whole inquiry is fundamentally an

apology of an inquiry with a pre-determined mind to impose major

penalty.

8. The aforesaid contentions were resisted by the respondents

contending, inter alia, that the statements of the children were recorded

properly in presence of three witnesses including the Principal who were

examined and cross-examined in course of enquiry and there is no reason

to disbelieve them; that when an act of this nature takes place, the

impression is imprinted in the minds of the young children and, therefore,

their version cannot be thrown overboard on the ground that they could

not have remembered the incident; that it was totally unbehovely on the

part of a teacher to conduct in such a manner and, therefore, the

punishment imposed was justified in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

9. The tribunal by the order impugned has opined that most of the

teachers including the principal as well as the parents had deposed that the

entire incident as truthful and it is illogical and irrational that the entire

school would be against the petitioner; that the incident was admitted by

the petitioner before the Principal; that the truthfulness of the statements

of the students could not be doubted on the ground that there is

manipulation and fabrication; that the authenticity of the statements of the

witnesses gains further acceptance, as they have remained unshaken

throughout; and that the punishment that has been imposed is absolutely

just and proper.

10. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry

was not conducted in a proper manner and, in fact, it was a mockery of

inquiry. It is urged by him that the mentally retarded students had no

capacity to depose before the authorities and, therefore, the credibility of

their statement could not have been given credence to. It is further urged

that the manner in which the inquiry has been conducted is a travesty of

justice inasmuch as the students never deposed before the inquiry officer

and they were not cross examined by the petitioner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner further submitted that there has been violation of principles

of natural justice while holding inquiry and hence, the punishment

imposed is totally vitiated in law.

11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that during

inquiry, charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and regard

being had to the delicate issue involved, appropriate and adequate

opportunity of hearing was offered. Learned counsel has drawn our

attention to the statement of imputation of misconduct, the order passed

by the disciplinary authority and that of the appellate authority. It is also

her submission that the order passed by the tribunal is impeccable and the

tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review could not have re-

appreciated the evidence on record.

12. On a perusal of the material brought before us it is noticeable that a

memorandum of charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 27.2.2002.

The imputation of misconduct reads as follows:

"On 31.07.2001 during school hours, while she was in dining hall where Master Sameer Chopra, a student of V.T.C. Mushroom, Aanchal, was present, she asked Master Chopra, to call Kumari Ruchika, also the student of V.T.C. Mushroom, Aanchal. Both Master Sameer and Kumari Ruchika came and then Smt. Lalita Singh took both the students in the sports room of the school. She then asked Sameer Chopra to bolt the room from inside. Thereafter she asked Master Sameer Chopra to open the jip of his pent and asked Kumari Ruchika to open her salwar and to do sexual act, as has been described in the statement dated 03.08.2001 of Kumari Ruchika and the statement of Sameer Chopra recorded in the presence of Smt. R. Chaterjee, the Principal, Ms. Sushila Tripathi and Ms.Chitra Gupta, Special Educator Aanchal. Thereafter she instructed both the students not to tell about the said incident to anybody."

13. To prove the said charges, the documents and the list of witnesses

were provided. Though the mentally retarded children were not produced

before the inquiry officer, Mrs.Aruna Sharma, Mr.A.K. Pathak and

Mr.Rajagopal were examined and cross-examined. It is worth noting that

statements of the retarded children were recorded in the presence of

Director (Welfare), confirmed by Mr.A.K. Pathak and Mr.Rajagopal of

the Vigilance Department. What is urged is that the mentally retarded

children should have been made available for cross examination. At this

juncture, we may note with profit that before the disciplinary authority it

was contended that the acceptance of the findings of the I.O. before her

submissions amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to her; that the

I.O. has introduced some documents which were never part of the inqury

and also failed to forward the written briefs of P.O. and C.O. to

Disciplinary Authority; that the parents of both the students were called as

witness whereas these two persons were not in the list of witnesses; that

the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are baseless and bereft of any

reasoning and, therefore, deemed to be quashed. The same has been

appropriately dealt with by the disciplinary authority by holding thus:

"The Inquiry Officer has given her findings based on the evidence facts and documents placed before her both by Presenting Officer and by Smt.Lalita Singh, C.O., through her Defence Counsel during the course of inquiry proceedings. It has also been noticed that Smt.Lalita Singh, the C.O. in her submissions has not made any submission about the ugly incident took place and merits of the case but has tried to make objections on technical grounds."

14. The appellate authority has appreciated the evidence on record and

opined thus:

"......In her deposition Smt. R. Chatterjee, PW-1 clearly stated that the appellant had narrated her that the latter wanted to assess the knowledge of these students regarding sexual matters. More so Km. Ruchika, the victim, also detailed the incident many a times without any discrepancy. All these led to the establishment of the charge against the appellant. It is also important to note that in such cases the level of proof required is much lower than that required in the criminal proceedings. Here we go by pre-ponderance of probabilities. Further, the grave misconduct committed by the appellant is shocking and most unbecoming of a teacher. This had brought bad name to the institution. As a

teacher the appellant was expected to ensure the welfare of the students. Instead she took advantage of the mental state of the students to achieve her malafide goal."

15. The tribunal in paragraph 14 of the order has held thus:

"14. Regarding the statements made by the students, these statements have been recorded in presence of the teachers and Principal and other staff members of the school, who have deposed so much confidence as truthful version of exactly what happened with them has been stated by the mentally retarded students in innocence twice, which cannot be doubted, as even mentally retarded students have some IQ and such horrifying immoral act perpetuated by the applicant had left such an imprint over their minds that they had recovered from that and ultimately were able to reiterate while making the statements on second occasion. As the authenticity and credibility of these statements has been failed to be shaken by the applicant with a reasonable defence, the inquiry being conducted in accordance with law and the order passed after considering all the contentions raised cannot be found fault at law.

16. The core issue that emerges for consideration whether the mentally

retarded children should have been cited as witnesses during the inquiry

proceeding. As is evincible, they had stated before the Principal and the

authorities who had affirmed their statements. The parents too have

deposed before the inquiry officer and remained totally unshaken. It is to

be borne in mind that the objective in a disciplinary proceeding is

altogether distinct and different. It cannot be compared with criminal

proceeding. The standard of proof, the mode of inquiry and the rules

governing the inquiry are based on the principle of preponderance of

probabilities. True it is, suspicion cannot take the position of proof but

proving the charges in a disciplinary proceeding is totally different than

that in a criminal proceeding. The allegations are not to be proven to the

hilt.

17. In Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and others, (2003) 3 SCC 583, it has

been held thus -

"It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See State of Rajasthan v. B.K Meena). In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct."

18. Tested on the anvil of said enunciation of law, it can safely be

concluded that is not a case of no-evidence. The approach of the

disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and that of the tribunal

cannot be regarded as perverse. That apart, the case has its own special

features. The petitioner was a sports teacher in a school for mentally

retarded children. We cannot perceive any justifiable reason why the

Principal, the administrative authorities, the teachers and the parents

would form an unholy combination against the petitioner. The material

brought on record speaks eloquently against the petitioner.

19. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that while exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an

appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is constricted by limits of judicial

review. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in R.S.

Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 wherein their lordships have

stated thus -

"16. Before adverting to the first contention of the appellant regarding want of material to establish the charge, and of non-application of mind, we will have to bear in mind the rule that the court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the inquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring authority, it is not the function of the court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the court in writ proceedings.

17. A narration of the charges and the reasons of the inquiring authority for accepting the charges, as seen from the records, shows that the inquiring authority has based its conclusions on materials available on record after considering the defence put forth by the appellant and these decisions, in our opinion have been taken in a reasonable manner and objectively. The conclusion arrived at by the inquiring authority cannot be termed as either being perverse or not based on any material nor is it a case where there has been any non-application of mind on the part of the inquiring authority. Likewise, the High Court has looked into the material based on which the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion, within the limited scope available to it under Article 226 of the Constitution and we do not find any fault with the findings of the High Court in this regard."

20. Regard being had to the material brought on record, the findings

recorded by the authorities and the scope of judicial review, we are of the

considered opinion that the view expressed by the tribunal is

unexceptionable and hence, there is no warrant for any interference.

21. Ex consequenti, the appeal stands dismissed without any order as to

costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 08, 2011 kapil