- (1.) SERVICE of notice on the respondent No. 1 is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 17-9-1986 at Kendriya Vidyalaya Valsura, District Jam Nagar, Gujarat. He was transferred to Moradabad in December 1989. THE petitioner had been nominated for prestigious Science teacher award which is given by the Government of India to those teachers whose works were exemplary in their field. He qualified All India Competitive Examination for the post of Principal in the year 2002-03 and 2004. He was also applied for the post of Principal M. D. Jain Inter College, Agra and Smt. Punia, Principal Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mathura Cantt. , Mathura recommended and appreciated the work of the petitioner on 18-9-2000. THE academic as well as service record of the petitioner was excellent. On 8-12-2000 a complaint was made by Smt. Santosh Punia against the petitioner and a written explanation was sought from the petitioner. A memo had been issued to the petitioner on 7-12-2000 which was served on the petitioner on 8-12-2000 seeking his explanation. THE petitioner gave a written reply on 9-12-2000 wherein he had written that all programmes were conducted under the written orders of the Principal. A charge-sheet was served under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in brief Rules 1965) on the petitioner on 6-2-2001 levelling three charges against him. No document was provided alongwith the charge-sheet. THE petitioner was suspended by order dated 8-12-2000 and thereafter a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Sri A. K. Gautam, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mathura Refinery, Mathura behind the back of the petitioner. Sri A. K. Varshney was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry with regard to charges levelled against the petitioner. Sri D. K. Tandon was appointed as presenting officer for Kendriya Vidyalaya and the petitioner was allowed to have Sri Brijesh Pandey as defence assistant for conducting the enquiry. On 27-3- 2001 Sri D. K. Tandon filed an application to call Sri R. S. Saraswat, Vice Principal, Sri R. P. Singh, Sri Kali Charan and Sri T. P. Tiwari all working as teachers in the institution as prosecution witnesses. In the enquiry Sri R. S. Saraswat, Sri R. P. Singh, Sri Kali Charan and Smt. Santosh Punia, the Principal of the institution appeared as witnesses and the presenting officer on 30-4-2001 moved an application for not presenting Sri T. P. Tiwari as prosecution witness. THE petitioner on 2-5-2001 moved an application for providing documents and also gave a list of additional documents to be provided to him. 13 documents were in the custody of the Principal but they were not provided to the petitioner. With regard to document Nos. 10 and 11 the petitioner was permitted to inspect them. Document Nos. 2 and 12 were not permitted to be supplied to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and document Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 13 were not available with the Principal as informed by the Enquiry Officer on 18-5-2001. THE petitioner's application for summoning Sri T. P. Tiwari as witness was rejected by the enquiry officer. THE petitioner submitted before the enquiry officer that there is contradiction in the statement of Sri R. N. Srivastava and Sri R. P. Singh and Sri Kali Charan and they have not supported the version of the charge- sheet. THE reply was given by the petitioner on 8-10-2001. The Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow on 19-10- 2001 passed an order removing the petitioner from service and the period of suspension from 8-10-2000 to 18-10-2001 was treated as non- duty and the amount of payment for the said period was restricted to the subsistence allowance already paid to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal under Article 80 of Education Code read with Rules 1965 before the Joint Commissioner (Investigation), respondent No. 3. By order dated 12/14-6-2002 the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 865 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The tribunal dismissed the original application by order dated 6-5-2005. The order of the tribunal, appellate authority and the disciplinary authority have been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Lucknow it has been stated that the memo dated 7-12-2000 was received by the petitioner for improving his work and behaviour but on 8-12-2000 the petitioner came to the Principal's chamber and misbehaved and used unparliamentary language to the Principal, Assistant Commissioner as well as Sri Atal Bihari Bajpayee, the then Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. When the Principal submitted her full report alongwith the signatures of Vice Principal to the Assistant Commissioner, he suspended the petitioner and attached him to Kendriya Vidyalaya Azamgarh. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Sri A. K. Gautam on 13-12-2001 on three charges but departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after compliance of the principles of natural justice the petitioner had been removed from service. The appeal of the petitioner had been dismissed by the appellate authority and the tribunal had rejected the Original Application of the petitioner. Therefore, the removal of petitioner from service is liable to be confirmed by this Court. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner the allegations made in the counter-affidavit had been denied.
(3.) WE have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhir Dixit and Sri D. P. Singh learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the charges against the petitioner could not be proved as there is no correlation between the charges and the report of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is based on no material or evidence and on the basis of such an enquiry report the disciplinary authority could not have punished the petitioner and the order of the appellate authority as well as the tribunal is illegal. He has further urged that the principles of natural justice was not complied with nor the documents demanded by the petitioner were supplied to him, witness Sri T. P. Tiwari was not summoned and examined by the enquiry officer inspite of written application given by the petitioner. Therefore, the entire proceedings were vitiated. He has lastly urged that the petitioner is not guilty of misbehaviour, threatening and using unparliamentary language, as well as misconduct and insubordination which is demonstrated by the statements recorded during the enquiry proceedings and as such the punishment of removal from service awarded by the respondents is too harsh and is liable to be quashed.;