Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2380 (ALL)

Anand Kishor Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-10-13

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2017
ORDER : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. The above noted first three writ petitions have been filed by the Principal of the Paramhans Shri Ranchhod Das Inter College Khaptiha Kalan, Banda. The last three writ petitions have been filed by the three class-IV employees of the aforesaid Institution whose services were terminated by the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Principal of the Institution. By the impugned orders dated 06.06.2011, 04.07.2011 and 06.06.2011 passed in the matters of the employees Ram Chandra Mahto, Shiv Shankar Tiwari and Ram Swaroop respectively, the District Inspector of Schools, Banda disposed of the appeals of the petitioners Ram Chandra Mahto, Shiv Shankar Tiwari and Ram Swaroop, by setting aside the order of termination from service and awarded punishment to the extent of withholding of one increment. Aggrieved with these three orders, the Principal of the Institution has filed the first three writ petitions and the employees have filed the last three writ petitions. 2. Heard Sri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the Principal being petitioner in the first three writ petitions, Sri S.K. Chaubey for all the three employees, Sri Mahendra Singh holding brief of Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for Committee of Management and Sri I.S. Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents. 3. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, all the six writ petitions are being finally heard together treating the Writ Petition No.38864 of 2011 as the leading writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Principal of the Institution submits that by the impugned order, the D.I.O.S. has reduced the punishment on a wrong finding that the charges proved against the employees were of trivial nature and, therefore, minor penalty should have been imposed. He submits that the petitioners-employees have abused and beaten a teacher in the college premises and, therefore, such conduct of these employees cannot be said to attract merely minor penalty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employees submits that neither principles of natural justice were followed nor the inquiry was conducted in terms of Regulation 35 of the Regulation nor there was any material before the Disciplinary Authority or the Committee of Management to inflict punishment of termination from service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-employees submits that neither principles of natural justice were followed nor the inquiry was conducted in terms of Regulation 35 of the Regulation nor there was any material before the Disciplinary Authority or the Committee of Management to inflict punishment of termination from service. The Principal of the Institution and the Manager of the Committee of Management were biased and, therefore, neither any inquiry was conducted in a transparent manner nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioners-employees to defend their case. In the absence of any material on record, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to sustain the punishment to the extent of withholding of increment for the one year. The Appellate Authority, i.e. the D.I.O.S. Banda was wholly justified to set aside the order of termination but committed a manifest error of law and fact to award punishment by withholding one increment. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. 7. On perusal of these writ petitions, it appears that the petitioners were appointed in the institution in question as Class-IV employees. Petitioner-employee Sri Ram Chandra Mahto belongs to schedule caste. Serious allegations of harassment and abusing etc. were made by him against the Manager of the Institution even prior to the initiation of present proceedings against him. An FIR was also lodged by him on 02.02.2009 against the Manager of the Institution. The other two petitioners-employees supported the cause of the petitioner-employee Sri Ram Chandra Mahto. It has been alleged by the petitioners employees that pressure was being exerted by the Manager of the Institution to withdraw the said FIR. It was brought on record by the petitioners-employees that the Principal of the Institution is indulged in sale of illicit liquor. From his rest room 384 pouches of illicit liquor were recovered and a news was also published in the daily news paper. It is alleged that the Manager and the Principal became annoyed and, therefore, on false allegations, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioners-employees. A charge-sheet was issued by the Principal of the Institution making allegation that the petitioners employees have misbehaved that the Assistant Teacher Sri Mahesh Prasad Dwivedi on 11.05.2010 and has also beaten him and an FIR was also lodged on 14.05.2010. A charge-sheet was issued by the Principal of the Institution making allegation that the petitioners employees have misbehaved that the Assistant Teacher Sri Mahesh Prasad Dwivedi on 11.05.2010 and has also beaten him and an FIR was also lodged on 14.05.2010. The petitioners-employees submitted a reply dated 17.06.2010 to the aforesaid charge-sheet in which it was alleged by the petitioner Ram Chandra Mahto denying the charges levelled against him. He stated that at the instance of the Principal, the aforesaid part-time teacher has not only abused him but also beaten him. It was also stated that he was regularly discharging his duty but he was being abused and even racial words were used against him and a threat was also extended to him to withdraw the criminal case lodged by him against the Manager otherwise he shall be terminated from service. It was also stated in the reply that threat letters received by him were also brought to the notice of the Principal who himself was involved in sale of illicit liquor from his rest room in the college from where 384 pouches of liquor were recovered and a news was also published in daily news paper on 16.02.2009. 8. The Principal of the Institution himself submitted an inquiry report dated 06.09.2010 in which he mentioned that initially he appointed Sri Ram Adhar Gupta, Lecturer as Inquiry Officer but it was opposed by the Assistant Teacher Sri Mahesh Prasad Dwivedi on whose complaint proceedings were initiated against the employees. Therefore the Principal nominated one Sri Manohar Vajpayee, Assistant Teacher but for personal reasons he shown his inability to conduct the inquiry. According to the Principal, he requested to teachers namely Ram Adhar Tripathi and Sri Sriprakash to assist him in the inquiry proceeding but they did not appear on 04.09.2010 at the time of inquiry. Therefore, the Principal himself conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report within 48 hours on 06.09.2010. The inquiry report was communicated by the Principal to the petitioners-employees along with a show cause notice and thereafter they were terminated from service vide order dated 23.10.2010. The petitioners-employees submitted representation before the Manager of the Institution on 20.02.2011. Therefore, the Principal himself conducted the inquiry and submitted the inquiry report within 48 hours on 06.09.2010. The inquiry report was communicated by the Principal to the petitioners-employees along with a show cause notice and thereafter they were terminated from service vide order dated 23.10.2010. The petitioners-employees submitted representation before the Manager of the Institution on 20.02.2011. However, with reference to resolution of Committee of Management dated 30.01.2011 authorising Vice President of the Committee of Management to hear the appeals/representations of the petitioners-employees, the Vice President submitted a report dated 27.03.2011 with respect to all the three petitioners-employees. It is relevant to note that in his inquiry report he referred to the order of the Committee of Management dated 30.01.2011 for hearing the appeal of the petitioners-employees which were filed much subsequently. The aforesaid report was approved on the same date by resolution of Committee of Management dated 27.03.2011. The petitioners-employees submitted an appeal/representation against the order of their termination before D.I.O.S., Banda which was considered by the D.I.O.S. and the impugned orders were passed. 9. From perusal of the facts as briefly noted above, it appears that the petitioners-employees as well as Principal of the Institution raised several points before the D.I.O.S., Banda but no findings thereon have been recorded. Record of the case prima facie shows some substance in the submissions of the petitioners-employees regarding bias approach in inquiry and to award punishment to them which was also necessary to be examined by the D.I.O.S. while deciding the petitioners-employees' appeals. 10. Learned counsels for the Principal and Petitioners-Employees jointly agreed that the matter may be remitted to the D.I.O.S. Banda, who may decide the appeals of the petitioners-employees afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Principal and the Petitioners-employees. 11. In view of the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, all these writ petitions are disposed of directing the D.I.O.S. Banda to decide the appeals of the petitioners-employees afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. The impugned orders dated 06.06.2011, 04.07.2011 and 06.06.2011 passed by the D.I.O.S. Banda are hereby set aside. 12. In view of the aforesaid, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction as aforementioned.