Delhi High Court
Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan (Hq) ... vs Rita Dutta And Anr on 10 November, 2014
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 2567/2014
C.M. No.5330/2014
% DECIDED ON: 10.11.2014
KENDRIYA VIDYALAY SANGATHAN (HQ) AND ANR
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate.
versus
RITA DUTTA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.L. Chawla with Mr. G.D. Chawla,
Advocates for Resp-1.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The respondent (hereafter referred to as „the applicant‟) was
working as Upper Division Clerk in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan
(hereafter referred to as "the KVS"). The applicant was issued with
the chargesheet on 12.5.2008 alleging two instances of misconduct.
This was the subject matter of proceedings before the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as "CAT") which, by
the impugned order, set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
the penalty imposed upon her.
2. The brief facts are that the applicant was issued with a
chargesheet on 12.5.2008 alleging inter alia that she did not write and
W.P. (C)2567-14 Page 1
maintain cash books in relation to the school fund amounts properly,
and that she did not prepare transfer certificates carefully due to
which the KVS had to cancel 6 out of 18 such documents. The other
article of charge was that the applicant was in the habit of using
un-parliamentary and abusive language towards Principal, teachers
and visitors. During the pendency of disciplinary/enquiry
proceedings, the applicant was transferred. The imposition of penalty
and the order of transfer was challenged by her successfully before
the CAT, which set aside both the impugned orders.
3. Counsel for the KVS urged that the impugned order is
erroneous. He highlights that the subtle distinction sought to be drawn
between the negligent conduct and wilful behaviour - in the context of
allegations levelled against the applicant, ought not to have been
made in the circumstances of the present case. Highlighting that the
applicant‟s conduct led to cancellation of certificates issued to certain
students and that her casual attitude in maintaining the records
undermined the KVS, learned counsel submitted that even though
there may have been no intention to personally gain from such action
or omission, nevertheless, these acts did undermine the discipline and
functioning of the employer. It was also pointed out that the findings
in the CAT - with respect to the one charge, was based entirely upon
its reading of the procedure column, which was erroneous. Learned
counsel submitted that the CAT noticed that during the enquiry,
witnesses had supported the charges and adequate opportunities were
granted to the applicant to refute them. The mere omission - if it
could be characterised as such - to deal with the defence submissions,
W.P. (C)2567-14 Page 2
could not entail the drastic consequences of setting aside of the entire
findings of the Enquiry Officer and the consequent penalty.
4. Counsel for the applicant urged that the CAT‟s order ought not
to be interfered with. It was submitted that the CAT also considered
the additional aspect, i.e., long delay in disposing of the appeal which
remained pending with the higher authorities for nearly two years. It
was urged that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the second
charge were unsound because there was perceptible bias in the
conduct of the proceedings.
5. It is apparent from the above discussion that two charges were
levelled against the applicant, one pertaining to her functioning and
other to her casual behaviour. Whilst there cannot be any dispute that
these allegations did not point to any wilful conduct so as to result in
any gratification or moral turpitude of that kind, the fact remains that
the omission to maintain record properly led to cancellation of several
certificates. Doubtlessly, this caused inconvenience to the students
who had to approach KVS again. Furthermore, failure to maintain
accounts and other records in an organization properly and in
accordance with the established rules is also a matter of concern.
Whilst, the Tribunal‟s findings - to the extent that extreme penalty of
removal or compulsory retirement may not be warranted in the
circumstances, may be upheld, the fact remains that such is not the
case here. The CAT proceeds, rather blindly - in our opinion, on the
assumption that negligent behaviour ipso facto does not amount to
misconduct. This assumption on the part of the CAT is too wide to
be accepted. Whilst, negligent behaviour is not to be accepted and
W.P. (C)2567-14 Page 3
should be avoided altogether, certain types of omissions and inactions
which do not have serious consequences could possibly be condoned.
However, under no circumstances, can it be said that all such
behaviour are to be condoned and that the public employer has no
option but to overlook them. Consequently, the findings on this
aspect are hereby set aside.
6. As far as the second charge of using abusive and
un-parliamentary language is concerned, the KVS had relied upon six
witnesses who apparently testified to the truth of such charge. The
applicant had relied upon certain materials to refute these charges.
The CAT found fault with the manner in which the enquiry was held
and particularly commented on the fact that the Enquiry Officer did
not deal with the submission of the applicant. Such being the case,
the extreme step of entirely setting aside such findings cannot be
supported. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court in
State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, 1996 SCC (3) 364
contains the guiding principle, i.e., if an infirmity or illegality crept
into the enquiry process at any stage, the entire proceedings or penalty
ought not to be quashed altogether but, instead, the Court or Tribunal
has to relegate the parties to the stage where such illegality crept in.
7. Having regard to these circumstances, the Court hereby sets
aside the impugned order of the CAT. The matter is remitted to the
KVS which shall refer the records to the Enquiry Officer to deal with
the second charge. Depending on the findings in regard to the
second charge, the question of penalty shall be gone into afresh. In
case the applicant is exonerated of the second charge, the KVS shall
W.P. (C)2567-14 Page 4
consider imposing appropriate penalty in the light of the observations
made above. This is, of course, subject to compliance with all
procedure and formalities prescribed by the rules and required to by
the law. The entire process shall be completed within four months
from today. The KVS is hereby directed to pass consequential orders
as to how the applicant‟s service would be treated during the period
when she was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement,
and till date, within two weeks from today. The writ petition stands
disposed of along with pending applications.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
/vikas/
W.P. (C)2567-14 Page 5
