Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dav College Managing Committee vs District Judge Fatehabad And Another on 21 January, 2025
CWP-28487-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
248 CWP-28487-2022
Date of Decision: 21.01.2025
DAV College Managing Committee ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
District Judge, Fatehabad and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA
Present:- Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for respondent no.2
TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari
quashing the judgment dated 15.10.2022, Annexure P-1, passed by the
Educational Tribunal, Fatehabad, whereby the second respondent's dismissal
from service vide order dated 04/07.10.2016, Annexure P-17, has been set
aside, and he has been ordered to be reinstated.
2. As per facts apparent on record, the second respondent was
working as Principal in a School run by the petitioner Management. He was
placed under suspension on 08.09.2014, and later served a chargesheet dated
27.12.2014. Considering his response to the same, a disciplinary inquiry was
conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 08.01.2016,
Annexure P-15. Thereupon, vide letter dated 02.10.2016, Annexure A-1, the
second respondent was informed about the findings arrived at by the Inquiry
Officer, and was called upon to show cause why action according to rules and
regulations of the Management should not be taken against him; a copy of the
inquiry report was also enclosed therewith. The second respondent replied to
the show cause notice by submitting a detailed reply dated 12.02.2016,
Annexure P-16. After going through the reply, the Management found it not
satisfactory and passed the order, dated 04/07.10.2016, dismissing him from
service. The same was challenged by the second respondent before the
Educational Tribunal by filing an appeal, which was allowed vide the impugned
judgment directing his reinstatement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of
dismissal was passed against the second respondent after giving him ample
opportunity to defend himself in terms of the procedure laid down. Despite
there being no substantial prejudice to the second respondent, the dismissal has
been set aside by the Tribunal ordering his reinstatement which is not
sustainable.
4. Learned senior counsel, on the contrary, contends that the order of
dismissal has been passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice which
the Management was mandatorily required to follow. The second respondent
was not afforded due opportunity to defend himself, and the conclusions arrived
at by the Inquiry Officer in his report were accepted without considering the
objections raised thereto in the detailed reply submitted by him.
5. A perusal of the order of dismissal, dated 04/07.10.2016, makes it
apparent that the reply, dated 12.02.2016, submitted by the second respondent
objecting to the conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer has not been
considered at all. None of the objections taken by the second respondent has
been taken into account while passing the order of dismissal. The order simply
records that after carefully going through the reply it has not been found
satisfactory. It is not a reasoned speaking order which the disciplinary authority
being quasi-judicial functionary was required to pass. Learned counsel for the
Management is not in a position to dispute the fact and fairly contends that a
fresh reasoned order will be passed by the Management after duly considering
all the objections taken by the second respondent in his reply to the show cause
notice. Learned senior counsel for the second respondent has no objection to
the same.
6. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal, dated 15.10.2022, setting aside the order of
dismissal, dated 04/07.10.2016, being in violation of the Principles of Natural
Justice. However, instead of permitting the Management to pass a fresh order
in accordance with law, the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of second
respondent in service with all consequential benefits, excluding the subsistence
allowance already received by him during the period of suspension and inquiry
proceedings.
7. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for both the parties
before this Court, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, dated 15.10.2022, is
set aside only to the extent it orders the reinstatement of second respondent in
service with all consequential benefits except the subsistence allowance, and
the petitioner Management is directed to pass a fresh order after considering his
reply, dated 12.02.2016, and affording him due opportunity of hearing, within
three months of receiving a certified copy of this order. His right to
reinstatement and consequential benefits will be determined as per fresh
decision taken by the Management.
8. Disposed of.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)
JUDGE
21.01.2025
Payal
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
