Decided on August 20,2013

State of Uttarakhand and others Appellant
Deep Singh And Others Respondents


- (1.) On 26th April, 2006, a charge-sheet was issued against respondent No. 1 in both the appeals, who filed the writ petition. In the charge-sheet, there were eight charges. Emphasis has been given by the appellants on charges No. 1 & 8. Charge No. 1 pertains to obtaining of B.Ed. during the period 1979-1981 while simultaneously teaching in the school. It was contended that the same was not permissible. 25 years after that incident, this charge could not be levied. Be that as it may, the inquiry officer, in no uncertain terms, has recorded a finding that respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner pursued the said course and completed the same after obtaining permission. The other charge, upon which our attention has been drawn, is pertaining to making of a complaint to the higher authority. It has been contended that such direct approach should not have been resorted to and that permission of the next higher authority should have been taken. The complaint was against the Principal, when he was in-charge of the examination, and in relation to mass copying. In other words, the charge was that, in relation to the said complaint to be made to higher authority, the permission of the Head Master was required. Be that as it may, the inquiry officer has recorded an atrocious finding to the effect that, before approaching the High Court, permission of the department was not taken.
(2.) That being the state of things, on the basis of the findings recorded, no prudent person could punish respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner while concluding the disciplinary proceeding by terminating his services. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, having had noticed the same, also pronounced the same. In other words, the learned Judge has held that, on the basis of the findings recorded, the disciplinary authority could not pass an order terminating the services of respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to take a different view.
(3.) The fact remains that, in course of disciplinary proceeding, while respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner was suspended, no subsistence allowance was paid. The learned Judge has observed that, in the counter affidavit filed by the disciplinary authority, it had indicated that there was no necessity of paying subsistence allowance, inasmuch as, respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner was well-off. The learned Judge has observed that the said stand suggests how bias the disciplinary authority was against respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner. Be that as it may, having had concluded the matter in the manner as reported in the inquiry report, respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner could not be punished by way of an order of termination. The fact remains that, having had considered the inquiry report, it was open for the disciplinary authority to direct de novo inquiry. It did not do so. It could also, on the basis of materials brought on record, take a different view than expressed in the inquiry report, but it did not do so. On the other hand, on the basis of the findings of the inquiry report, which are all in favour of respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner, or totally bereft of any sense, the disciplinary authority acted and the learned Judge, according to us, correctly pointed out that a disciplinary authority could act only in such manner when it was acting mala fide.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.