M.S. FRANK Vs. DELHI UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the report of the Inquiry Officer, in an Inquiry conducted pursuant to a charge-sheet issued to him on December 22, 2011, whereby the learned Enquiry Officer has proved certain charges against the petitioner and further penalties of (i) forfeiture with effect from January 08, 2014 of two increments of the petitioner's salary; (ii) requirement to submit a bond of good behaviour, have been imposed on him vide order dated January 8, 2014.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has been working with the respondent No.2 college for the last 30 years. In April, 2009 he was appointed as a Superintendent of examinations to conduct the examination of the students. An allegation for harassing a physically challenged student of the college was also made against the petitioner by respondent No.4, who was at the relevant time officer on special duty, officiating as Principal of respondent No.2 college. The respondent No.4 had alleged that despite the medical certificates to the effect that the student needs to be provided an Air-condition Room due to his health condition and strict instructions from the Principal to help the students, the petitioner refused to provide him a seat in an Air-condition Room. According to the petitioner, he followed the rules in existence at that time i.e. only visually challenged students could be provided reliefs by the concerned college without any prior approval of the university, otherwise any other physically challenged candidate/student seeking relief was required to apply to the University, which would then be referred to the Chief Medical Officer WUS Health Centre, University of Delhi for medical assessment and due recommendation to the Controller of Examinations who then would issue a letter to the College that due facilities be provided to the candidate. The petitioner's case is that on November 11, 2011 when agenda notes were circulated by the respondent No.4 to all the members of the governing body in respect of a meeting to be held on November 25, 2011, no mention was made of the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. On November 25, 2011 the meeting of respondent No.3 i.e. governing body took place wherein resolutions were passed finding prima facie misconduct against the petitioner and authorizing the respondent No.4 to initiate appropriate action as well as appointing him the disciplinary authority. On December 01, 2011 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging wrongdoing and calling upon the petitioner to submit reply by December 15, 2011. It appears that a representation signed by 44 teachers was submitted protesting the manner in which the governing body and the respondent No.4 brought up the case against the petitioner and how the petitioner was being targeted for other reasons. On December 12, 2011 the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 9037/2011 challenging the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings on various grounds of malice and violation of principles of natural justice. In the mean time the respondent No.4 on a consideration of the reply to the show cause notice and finding the same to be unsatisfactory issued a charge sheet dated December 22, 2011 to the petitioner and also appointed an Inquiry Officer. The charge-sheet consisted of 7 articles of charge. It appears that there was no restraint order of this Court in W.P.(C) 9037/2011 against the respondent No.4 from holding the Inquiry proceedings. On February 21, 2013 the Inquiry proceedings against the petitioner were concluded. The W.P.(C) 9037/2011 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, against which an LPA 862/2013 was filed by the petitioner, which is stated to be pending as on date.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench vide its order dated October 29, 2013 passed an order making any decision taken by the governing body shall be subject to the outcome of the aforementioned LPA. On November 27, 2013 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in relation to the Inquiry report. The petitioner vide his letter dated December 06, 2014 submitted his reply to the respondent No.3 governing body. He had also vide letter dated January 02, 2014 requested the members of the respondent No.3 for a personal hearing. On January 08, 2014 a decision was taken by the respondent No.3, the governing body of the respondent No.2, imposing the penalties as referred above. The petitioner vide his letter dated January 14, 2014 protested against the decision taken by the governing body on January 08, 2014 impsing penalties as referred above. On February 20, 2014 the petitioner, in view of the penalty order, for giving a bond of good behaviour submitted the same at the office of the Chairman of respondent No.3 body without prejudice to his rights. The petitioner had also protested to the members of respondent No.3 body regarding the minutes of the meeting dated January 08, 2014 which he got access only in the second week of April, 2014.