Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 196 (GUJ)

R U PATEL v. COMMISSIONER (SCHOOLS)

2018-01-22

MOHINDER PAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the respondents vide which he has been removed from the School, by the Management, by their order dated 30.5.2008 and that the petitioner's application against the stay order has also been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (S.T.) category. He possesses the degree of M.Sc. (Maths) and M.Ed. and was appointed on 01-08-1989, as Assistant Teacher in the Higher Secondary School at Vidyakunj High School, Navsari. Principal of the School, Mr.M.T.Pancholi, did not like the petitioner as the petitioner belongs to a different caste and therefore, used to harass the petitioner by issuing unnecessary memos without any basis or without any justification. As a part of such harassment, Mr.Pancholi, issued memo dated 31.1.2007, 2.2.2007 and 24.2.2007 containing absolutely false allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner replied to these memos vide his letter dated 10.3.2007 wherein, he denied the allegations raised by Mr.Pancholi. However, Mr.Pancholi, did not accept the petitioner's explanation and issued show cause notice dated 8.8.2007. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice. However, he was informed by letter dated 30.8.2007 that his application has been rejected. Ultimately, departmental action came to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was put under suspension. As many as 7 charges were framed against the petitioner. Some of the charges were dropped during pendency of the proceedings. However, ultimately, after conclusion of inquiry, petitioner has been found guilty of 4 charges. He was served with second charge-sheet and ultimately, he has been terminated from service. Petitioner approached the Education Tribunal against such termination. However, his petition came to be dismissed, which has given rise to filing of the present petition. 3. This petition has been contested by the respondents. However, no specific reply has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was being discriminated as he belongs to a different caste. He was ill-treated in the office and in order to deny his chances of being promoted as Head Master/Principal, he has been falsely charge-sheeted by the respondents. Learned counsel has further argued that the Principal himself has appeared as Presenting Officer before the Inquiry Committee and the witnesses examined by the respondent-School were under the influence of the Principal, and as such, fair inquiry has not been conducted in this case. 5. Learned counsel has further argued that the Principal himself has appeared as Presenting Officer before the Inquiry Committee and the witnesses examined by the respondent-School were under the influence of the Principal, and as such, fair inquiry has not been conducted in this case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2-School has submitted that petitioner was in the habit of creating nuisance in the office of the Principal. He has misbehaved with the Principal and on one or two occasions, he has tried to hit the Principal in presence of other staff members and as such, he has been rightly charged and held guilty by the Committee. While relying upon the above submissions, he has prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The fact that the petitioner is duly qualified and belongs to S.T. category and was working as Assistant Teacher is not in dispute. It is the allegations against the petitioner that he has misbehaved with the Principal in presence of other staff members and has tried to hit the Principal by raising his hands. He was issued with show cause notice on various occasions wherein, he has denied the allegations. However, the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory and charge-sheet came to be issued. It is arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that Presenting Officer was himself the Principal and witnesses were under the influence of the Principal who had deposed against the petitioner. 7. This Court has considered the afore-mentioned submissions. As many as 28 witnesses have been examined. All these witnesses were examined by the School and have deposed against the petitioner. Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, but no substantial evidence has come out from the cross-examination in favour of the petitioner. 8. This Court is unable to agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated being from a different caste. This Court has gone through the inquiry report wherein, it has been mentioned that, apart from the petitioner, there are other employees in the school, who were belonging to same caste as that of the petitioner. None of these employees have raised objection regarding behavior of the Principal. This Court has gone through the inquiry report wherein, it has been mentioned that, apart from the petitioner, there are other employees in the school, who were belonging to same caste as that of the petitioner. None of these employees have raised objection regarding behavior of the Principal. It is also relevant to note that, none of the employees of the school have deposed in favour of the petitioner to deny the allegations raised against him. The committee was required to decide the charges on the basis of the evidence brought on record. Evidence of 28 witnesses was sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was guilty of as many as 4 charges out of the charges framed against him. 9. It could be seen that initially, there were 7 charges. School authorities have requested to drop two charges. However, one charge has been dropped by the Committee. It will be relevant to note that during pendency of the petition on 4.9.2012, this Court tried to intervene in the matter and directed the respondents to substitute the punishment of termination. In pursuance to orders of this Court, respondent-Trust made an offer of substituting the punishment of termination; with an offer to, (a)tendering of unconditional apology by the petitioner, (b)making a request to waive the back-wages for the period he has remained out of job and (c)withholding of two increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. The petitioner did not agree with the aforementioned relaxation in the punishment proposed by the respondents. During arguments, this Court has also tried to convince the petitioner that the order of termination can be modified if he agrees to the aforementioned relaxation given by the respondents in pursuance to the order passed by this Court. However, petitioner is not agreeable to this concession. Rather, the petitioner has filed an affidavit at page No.188 of the petition wherein, he has denied to accept the offer given by the respondent in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court. 10. In view of afore-going discussion, this petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.