UNION OF INDIA Vs. GOVIND RAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 was working as Assistant Teacher (TGT) in the North Central Railway Inter College which is a school run by the North Central Railway. On 3.7.2003, while taking class IX -C in the 2nd period, he allegedly gave merciless beating to a student named Rinku Kumar because of which Rinku Kumar was physically and mentally disturbed. On receiving a complaint to this effect from the father of Rinku Kumar on 15.7.2003, who met the Principal along with Shri L.N. Ojha, Secretary of NRMU, followed by written narration of the incident by Rinku Kumar himself on 16.7.2003, the matter was enquired into. The respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension, in the meantime, vide orders dated 17.7.2003. The fact finding inquiry allegedly revealed that it was the habit of the respondent No. 1 to give physical punishment to the students of the class and he would generally misbehave with them. He also used to force the students to take private tuitions from him. Formal charge sheet was served upon the respondent levelling three charges, which are as follows:

(2.) UTTERING filthy and unparliamentary language on 3.07.2003 inside the class during teaching hours with the interest of compelling Rinku Kumar to join private tuition at his home.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, we may state at the outset that the limited ground on which the impugned penalty order is quashed is that though the Inquiry Officer had concluded that charge No. 3 was partially proved and the charge of habitual misbehaving and beating the student was not proved, the order of the disciplinary authority revealed that the said authority proceeded on the basis that even this charge was proved, which led to imposition of the punishment of removal from service. Thus, the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration extraneous factor. The Tribunal has also opined that the Inquiry Officer merely recorded the conclusion that the charges were proved without supporting his conclusion by reasons and such non -speaking order by the Inquiry Officer vitiated the inquiry. It has also been held by the Tribunal that even the appellate authority had not complied with Rule 22 of the Railway Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 as he had not looked into the procedural illegality despite no finding by the Inquiry Officer. He maintained the punishment of habitual misbehavior of the respondent No. 1. The OA was, thus, partly allowed giving the following directions: