ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MANAGER, LAXMAN PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner impugns the order dated 13.8.1998 of the Delhi School Tribunal (DST) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the termination order dated 15.12.1993 passed by the respondent No. 1 school. Petitioners services were terminated pursuant to the report of the enquiry officer given after enquiry proceedings whereby petitioner, who was working as a Peon cum Driver in the respondent No. 1 school, was found guilty of illegally obtaining and leaking/selling question papers to students of the school. The papers were with respect to the annual examinations of the year 1992.

(2.) BEFORE me, learned counsel for the petitioner argued the following points:

(3.) ANOTHER facet of natural justice which is argued to be violated by the petitioner is that petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead evidence. Once again this argument is without any merit because proceedings before the enquiry officer dated 29.6.1992 shows that after reading out the earlier statements which were made by Sh. Ashok Kumar/petitioner as also statements of two other charged employees, namely, Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Umesh Shah, petitioner was asked that if he wants to say anything about the issue and to which all that the petitioner said is that he made some enquiries with respect to the conduct of Sh. Ghosh, who got angry and did not talk to the petitioner like before. There is also the statement of the student who purchased the exam papers. There is nothing recorded in the enquiry proceedings on 24.3.1992 when the petitioner asked for leading of any evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the contention of the petitioner is an afterthought that the principles of natural justice have been violated because petitioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence. It is settled law that principles of natural justice are not inflexible hidebound rules. Application of principles of natural justice varies as per the facts of each case. Similarly, strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to departmental proceedings such as the present. Documents need not be formally proved (as is done in a Civil Court) before enquiry officer looks into such documents. The Supreme Court in its judgments reported as State Bank of India and Others Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S.Gandhi and Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 has held that provisions of Evidence Act do not apply to departmental enquiries and strict rules of proving facts as applicable to a civil court do not apply to departmental proceedings. Supreme Court has further observed in these judgments that compliance of principles of natural justice depends on facts of each case in the departmental proceedings. The relevant para of the judgment in the case of State Bank of India (supra) is para 23 which reads as under: