Bhushan Lal vs Po, Educational Tribunal Ambala & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11937 P&H

CWP-36353-2018 1
2023:PHHC:101032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.210 CWP-36353-2018
Date of Decision: 04.08.2023
Bhushan Lal .... Petitioner
Versus

The Presiding Officer, Educational Tribunal,

Ambala and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Inderjit Singh, Advocate

for respondents No.2 to 4.
2 2 2k

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Appeal No.16 of 2016, by Educational Tribunal, Ambala, to the extent petitioner has not been held entitled to back wages, and respondents No.2 to 5 have been granted liberty to conduct an enquiry against him, and also to keep the petitioner under suspension during the proceedings, if any, initiated against him.

2. The facts of the case in brief are, the petitioner was working as driver of the school bus from 30.10.1995. A complaint was received against him on 28.12.2014, lodged by an ex-teacher of the respondent-School, alleging that he had been threatening and torturing her mentally for the last few months. Her daughter was also studying in the same School in Class X, and she was worried about her daughter's safety also. Her family was also suffering due to this.

3. On this complaint, show cause notice, dated 28.12.2014, was

issued to the petitioner by Chairman of the School requiring him to clear his 2023.08.10 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

MANINDER 2023.08.10 10:09

CWP-36353-2018 2 2023:PHHC:101032

stand within three days, as to why action should not be taken against him on the complaint dated 28.12.2014. The petitioner did not send any reply to the show cause notice, and he was terminated vide order dated 30.12.2014. The order was challenged by him before the Educational Tribunal. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 06.07.2018, found the termination order unsustainable being violative of the Principles of Natural Justice and the rule of azzedi alteram partem. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service without payment of back wages, and the respondents were granted liberty to conduct enquiry into the incident and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. They were also granted liberty to keep the petitioner under suspension during such proceedings, if initiated.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is not sustainable since there was no basis for the complainant to lodge the complaint against the petitioner, who never harassed, humiliated or threatened the complainant in any manner. In fact, she had left the School job before 11.03.2014, and the petitioner could not have threatened her, nor did he extend any threat to her daughter, as alleged. No complaint/FIR was lodged with regard to the allegations. The very fact that the allegations have been levelled by her afer nine months of leaving the School, make them unbelievable. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in granting liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, points out that the order is well reasoned and has been passed for justifiable reasons. Since the petitioner was given show cause notice which he failed to respond to, the respondents had no option but to terminate his service.

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the case

file has been perused.

I attest to the accuracy an

authenticity of this order/judgment.

MANINDER 2023.08.10 10:09

CWP-36353-2018 3 2023:PHHC:101032

7. A perusal of the Tribunal's order shows that the order terminating the petitioner's service was set aside only on account of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, without going into merits of the allegations against him. It could not be established on record that the show cause notice dated 28.12.2014 was, in fact, served on the petitioner. Even otherwise, grant of a day's time to respond to the notice was not sufficient. In these circumstances, in case the Tribunal after setting aside the order of termination, granted liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner by following due procedure in accordance with law, no exception can be taken to it. Besides, it cannot be said that allegations in the complaint are per se not believable. The complaint has been lodged by a former teacher of the School, whose daughter was also studying there. She has specifically alleged that the petitioner has maltreated, harassed and humiliated her, and she apprehended threat to her family also. These allegations require an enquiry to ascertain their veracity.

8. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with the observation that the enquiry against the petitioner, if any, should be initiated within four weeks from receiving a

certified copy of this order.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 04.08.2023 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned --_: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment.