Balraj Singh vs Presiding Officer Ld. Educational ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 7212 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balraj Singh vs Presiding Officer Ld. Educational ... on 4 April, 2024

CM-4734-C WP-2024 in/and 1
CWP-3778-2023 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:045508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.103 CM-4734-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-3778-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.04.2024

Balraj Singh .... Petitioner

Versus

Presiding Officer, Ld. Educational Tribunal,

Gurugram and another ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA

Present: Ms. Savita Rana, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
3 2k 3

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)

CM-4734-C WP-2024 and CM-803-C WP-2024

For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. The order dated 18.12.2023 passed in the main petition is recalled. Accordingly, the main petition is restored and taken on Board today itself.

CWP-3778-2023

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the judgment dated 14.10.2022, Annexure P-12, passed by the District Judge-cum-Educational Tribunal, Gurugram, as also the order dated 22.05.2019, Annexure P-11, whereby petitioner's services were terminated.

2. Learned counsel contends that the enquiry against the petitioner was not properly conducted, the findings are only based upon statements of official witnesses. No video recordings of the incidents have been produced by the management. In these circumstances, there was no basis to conclude misconduct on the petitioner's part, nor could any action on that basis have

been taken by the management.

CM-4734-C WP-2024 in/and 2 CWP-3778-2023 (O&M) 2024: PHHC:045508

3. A perusal of the Tribunal's judgment shows that the petitioner was issued a charge sheet on 04.09.2018. He filed a reply to the same denying the allegations on 06.09.2018. Thereupon, an enquiry officer was appointed on 26.09.2018, who conducted the regular enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was given assistance of a representative on his asking. He along with his representative did appear before the enquiry officer but failed to lead any evidence in defence. Accordingly, enquiry officer gave findings on the basis of the statements of the witnesses produced, holding that charges stood proved against the petitioner. After considering the relevant facts as well as findings of the enquiry, the order of termination, dated 22.05.2019, has been passed. There is nothing on record to establish that due procedure was not followed by the management before taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. In fact, opportunity of hearing was duly afforded to him to establish his case, but he failed to do that.

4. In view thereof, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of termination. Accordingly, the petition

stands dismissed.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 04.04.2024 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned__:: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No