Shri Chandan Shil Sharma vs The State Of Tripura And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 787 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 8



                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                       _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                              WP(C) No.570 of 2021
Shri Chandan Shil Sharma
                                                       ......Petitioner(s)
                                  VERSUS
The State of Tripura and others
                                                        ......Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate, Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate, Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)         :       Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. G.A.,
                                  Mr. A. Dey, Advocate.

      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

                              _O _R _D _E_ R_
23.08.2021

Petitioner has challenged an order dated 01.01.2021 passed by

the Director of Elementary Education imposing punishment of compulsory

retirement on the petitioner as also an order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the

Secretary, Education (School) Department, Government of Tripura

dismissing the appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

In the year 1997 the petitioner was appointed as an under

graduate teacher in a Government school. On 06.05.2019 an incident took

place when the petitioner beat up a Class-III student. On 07.05.2019 the

Inspector of Schools, therefore, issued a memorandum calling for the

petitioner's explanation for such incident in which he stated that the

petitioner had punished physically a girl student of Class-III on 06.05.2019,

he should explain his conduct within three days. The petitioner replied to

this memo under a letter dated 10.05.2019 in which he had stated that while

he was taking the class of arithmetic of Class-III he had asked the students

to write down numbers from 9 to 99. One student Pratima Debnath could

not write some numbers, such as, 19, 29, 47 etc. Since this was taught to

the students ten days back and this girl could not give correct answers, he

lost temper and beat her up with a cane which he was carrying in his hand.

[3] Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner the

department instituted an inquiry under a memorandum dated 20.05.2019

which contained one charge, namely, that on the date of incident the

petitioner while serving as an under graduate teacher beat Pratima Debnath,

a Class-III student with bamboo stick and injured her so badly that she had

to be hospitalized. This had caused mental harassment to the student also

and this mode of punishment was prohibited under Section 17 of the Right

to Education Act, 2009. The charge-sheet contained statement of

imputation of misconduct which elaborated the allegation against the

petitioner as under :

"As per enquiry report No.F.2(24)/EDN(S)/GEN/2013 dated 08/05/2019 by Sri Tapan Baidya, OSD, District Education Office, Belonia, South Dstrict, on 06/05/2019 during summer camp Sri Chandan Sil Sarma, UGT beat Smt. Pratima Debnath student of class III with bamboo stick on her legs and choked her abruptly by rising up and down for not writing, also slapped her several times. Smt. Debnath was hospitalized on 06/05/2019 at Barpathari P.H.C with admission register No.162/19 being physically demoralized and attach with fever along with injury caused by beating as stated by doctor. The Inspector of Schools, Belonia, South District issued Show caused Notice vide No.F.1(12)/IS- BLN/2019/1440-42 dated 08.05.2019 and it is evident from the reply that he admitted the lapse.

The aforesaid lapse of a government servant is unbecoming and also a gross misconduct on the part of Sri Chandan Sil Sarma, UGT, within the meaning of Rule 3(1) of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 for which Sri. Sarma, UGT liable himself for being charge sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965."

[4] The petitioner did not resist the allegations contained in the

departmental inquiry during the course of the inquiry proceedings. This

was recorded by the Inquiry Officer in his minutes dated 25.09.2020 which

reads as under :

"PO Shri Pranoy Debbarma is present.

AO Shri Chandan Shil Sharma is present.

Today is fixed for recording of preliminary statement of AO. Accordingly the statement is recorded in separate sheet and kept attached with the record. AO was explained the substance of acquisition in Article I of the charge sheet and also explained the consequence of pleading guilty to which he voluntarily pleaded guilty.

Accepting his plea of guilt I find and hold that AO is guilty and the charge levied against him under Article I of the charge-sheet is found to be true and are sustained. The fin

dings of guilt passed in separate sheets to be kept attached with the record.

The original case records be sent to the Disciplinary Authority after observing all codal formalities."

[5] The Inquiry Officer thereupon presented his report dated

25.09.2020 holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. A

copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was supplied to the petitioner enabling

him to make a representation. The petitioner made representation on

17.11.2020. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report and

the representation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment of

compulsory retirement by the impugned order dated 01.01.2021 making

following observations :

"AND WHEREAS, Sri Sharma, UGT submitted his representation on 17/11/2020 which has carefully been examined, wherein, he agreed to the charge brought against him;

AND WHEREAS, the mental and physical trauma the child had to go through is irreversible;

AND WHEREAS, such kind of act from a teacher will not only create phobia in the mind of the particular child but also in the minds of other children in the class; AND WHEREAS, such kind of cruel act is not desired from a teacher which resulted in hospitalization of a student studying in class III;

NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, on going through the records in file and in consideration of the facts & circumstances of the case, and confession of the incumbent concerned, takes an extremely lenient view and hereby imposes a major penalty of "Compulsory retirement" to Sri Chandan Shil Sharma, UGT."

[6] The petitioner filed appeal against the order of the disciplinary

authority which was dismissed on 18.03.2021. Hence this petition.

[7] Appearing for the petitioner learned counsel Shri Roy Barman

submitted that the petitioner had candidly accepted the charge and regretted

his actions and assured that such incidents shall not occur in future. The

disciplinary authority therefore should have taken a lenient view and

imposed any punishment other than dismissal, removal or compulsory

retirement. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the disciplinary

authority imposed a punishment which was grossly disproportionate.

[8] In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the

decisions of Supreme Court in case of Raghubir Singh versus General

Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301 and

in case of Nicholas Piramal India Limited versus Harisingh, reported in

(2015) 8 SCC 272.

[9] The facts on record are rather simple and undisputed. On

06.05.2019 the petitioner while taking arithmetic class of standard III in a

Government school where he was engaged as a teacher, handed down

severe physical punishment to one of the girl students. Since the petitioner

has accepted all allegations against him, my task has become simple as to

what exactly might have happened on that day. The imputation of

misconduct points out that during summer camp the petitioner beat up a

Class-III girl student with bamboo stick on her legs and caught her by the

neck and shaking her up and down almost choking her. He also slapped her

several times and on account of which the girl had to be hospitalized at a

nearby P.H.C. She was tormented and she had fever besides carrying

injuries on account of such punishment.

[10] The petitioner did not dispute any of these allegations. The

charges were explained to him during the course of the inquiry as was

recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the order dated 25.09.2020, contents of

which are reproduced earlier.

[11] The charge against the petitioner that stood proved thus was of

a serious physical assault on a Class-III girl student causing injuries which

required her to be hospitalized and the physical and mental trauma caused

fever to her. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be seen as a momentary

loss of discretion on account of some unacceptable but otherwise

explainable reason. The petitioner has tried to put it as a one of lapse on his

part as something which is conventional though no longer legal. He also

attributes his behavior to "sudden provocation" which I utterly fail to

understand, appreciate and accept.

[12] In view of such facts, it cannot be stated that the punishment

imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate

authority is disproportionate to the proved charge, leave alone being so

grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court, a

parameter which Courts apply for interfering with the punishment handed

down by the competent authority pursuant to a validly constituted domestic

inquiry. This is sufficiently clear through series of judgments of Supreme

Court starting from the judgment in case of B.C Chaturvedi vs. Union of

India, reported in JT 1995(8) SC 65.

[13] The decisions in cases of Raghubir Singh (supra) and

Nicholas Piramal (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner to

refer to the concept of proportionality in evaluating punishment handed

down to an employee. These judgments, however, must be viewed in

background of two factors. Firstly, both these judgments relate to the cases

arising out of the Labour Court where a workman had challenged a

punishment handed down by the employer and in which case under Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court has a much wider

discretion to judge the punishment imposed by the employer and to

substitute the same in appropriate case. Second factor which upon perusal

of these judgments would be visible is that having discussed the concept of

proportionality in punishment to an employee, the Court interfered with the

punishment after holding that the same was shockingly disproportionate to

the proved charge.

[14] This discussion in the previous paragraph was perhaps

academic since I do not even find that the punishment imposed in the

present case is disproportionate, not to speak of being so disproportionate

as to shock the conscience of the Court.

[15] Mere honesty of the petitioner in admitting the charge or his

assurance that such an incident shall not recur are not the grounds for

tempering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority in the present

case.

[16] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if

any, also stands disposed of.

(AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Dipesh