Raj Singh vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2315 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Judgment delivered on 10.04.2012

+       W.P.(C) 1961/2012

RAJ SINGH                                                        ..... Petitioner
                      versus

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner    :        Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. R.N. Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent    :        Mr. S. Rajappa, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                               JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in OA 3308/2010

whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissed the

petitioner's said original application.

2. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had challenged the order of the Disciplinary

Authority dated 19.04.2007 and also the order of the Appellate Authority dated

16.12.2008. By virtue of the order dated 19.04.2007, the Disciplinary Authority had

imposed a penalty of reduction of pay upon the petitioner for a period of two years with

the further direction that he would not earn any increment during the said period of two

years and that the same would have the effect of postponing his future increments.

3. The appellate order dated 16.12.2008 had confirmed the order of the Disciplinary

Authority. The petitioner also sought revision and the same had been rejected by the

Commissioner on 04.06.2010. The said orders were passed upon a chargesheet dated

08.11.2004 which was issued to him. The petitioner had received the said chargesheet

while he was working as a Post Graduate Teacher (Biology) in Kendriya Vidyalaya,

Bulandshahar. The chargesheet contained the following allegations:-

                    (i)     assaulting one Sh. Prakash Joshi the then LDC of
                            the school,
                    (ii)    misbehaving with the then Vice-Principal of the
                            school,
                    (iii)   arranging criminal attack on a lady teacher on
                            failure to achieve his sexually motivated objectives,
                    (iv)    entering into direct correspondence with higher and
                            outside authorities without following the procedure.

4. An inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that Article

Nos. (ii) and (iv) were proved against him whereas the other articles of charge could not

be established against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the penalty mentioned above. The Appellate

Authority also rejected the petitioner's appeal. His revision petition was also dismissed.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for setting aside the said orders.

5. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner made submissions with regard to the two

articles of charge namely Article Nos.(ii) and (iv) which had been held to have been

proved. It was submitted by the petitioner that insofar as Article No.(ii) is concerned,

there was no evidence to support the said charge of alleged mis-behaviour of the

petitioner with the Vice Principal and that the same was solely based on the complaint

letter and the testimony of the Vice Principal. The Tribunal examined the entire material

on record and went through the report of the Inquiry Officer in detail and came to the

conclusion that this was not a case of no evidence as there was the clear testimony of the

Vice Principal.

6. We see no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. This

is so because it is a settled principle of law that insofar as the disciplinary proceedings are

concerned, neither the Tribunal nor this Court enters into re-appreciation of evidence. If

there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the

Disciplinary Authority, neither the Tribunal nor this Court would return its finding in

place of that of the lower authorities. This is clearly not a case of no evidence and,

therefore, no interference is called for.

7. Insofar as Article (iv) is concerned, the plea taken by the petitioner was that the

letters which have been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer to return a finding against him

did not form part of the chargesheet and were supplied to him at a later stage when he did

not have an opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the documents.

8. We find that the letters that are in question were written by the petitioner himself.

Furthermore, he does not challenge the fact that he had sent those letters. Therefore, we

fail to understand as to how any prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner by the

supply of the copies of the said letters at a later stage i.e. at the time of the conclusion of

the prosecution case. Once the petitioner has admitted that he had infact sent those

letters, there was no question of any prejudice having been caused to him.

9. Consequently, we cannot accept the plea of the petitioner that he was denied a

reasonable opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the said documents inasmuch as

the petitioner himself admitted the said documents. The petitioner had also admitted that

there was no inscription of "advance copy" on any of the letters. Therefore, the said

Article of charge stands established against the petitioner. We see no reason to interfere

with that finding either.

10. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 10, 2012 rb