MADHUSUDAN DHARSHIBHAI TANK Vs. M ANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 5-12-1998 Annexure-K whereby the penalty of removal from the service of the petitioner has been awarded with immediate effect in terms of para 10.1 (b) (iii) and 10.3 of the Sainik School Society Rules and Regulations.

(2.) The petitioner joined as an Accountant in the service of the Sainik School, Balachadi (Jamnagar) on 1st July, 1981. Some anonymous letter written by SSB members was received by the office of Local Board of Administration, Sainik School, Balachadi in September, 1987 wherein various allegations of corruption against the Principal - respondent were made. Another anonymous letter was also addressed to Mr. K.C. Pant, Defence Minister, Government of India, New Delhi which is said to have been written by the staff members making various allegations against the respondent received by the defence ministry on 22-4-1988. Copies of the first anonymous letter were also sent to the Prima Minister, Defence Minister and Honourary Secretary, Sainik School Society, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Inspecting Office, Sainik Schools Society, New Delhi. It appears that those anonymous letters were sent to the respondent for investigation. After investigation the matter the respondent authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a person behind those two letters against the Principal - respondent. The respondent issued the show cause notice dated 15-6-1988 to the petitioner Accountant of the respondent school as to why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the petitioner on the following charges :

(3.) The petitioner was required to submit his explanation within 11 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner requested the Principal respondent by the letter dated 25-6-1988 for supply of the copies of the letter, audit report, books of accounts and other documents for replying to the allegations made in para (a) to (g) of the show caused notice dated 15-6-1988 Annexure-B and in case he is not supplied, nonsupply of the documents will cause great injustice to his defence. The petitioner also requested for one month's time to reply to the show cause notice. The another notice dated 2-7-1988 was sent to the petitioner stating therein that the contents of the petitioner's reply were not bonafide and the reply was prima facie vague and in order to kill the time. The charges levelled against the petitioner by the show cause notices were clear and self-explanatory as the petitioner being an Accountant was fully aware about all the things and documents no further clarification or document is deemed necessary to be given to the petitioner as desired by him vide his letter dated 25-6-1988 and the petitioner was further given an opportunity to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The petitioner gave reply by the letter dated 17-6-1998 stating that nonsupply of the documents will cause great prejudice to him. He also denied it all the allegations and stated that he was not aware of any of the documents which were likely to be used against him and neither they were read or seen by him. In case, the petitioner is refused to supply the copies of the documents or any other evidence it will not amount to afford an opportunity to defend himself and the respondent Principal had already made up mind to ignore him without giving any opportunity to defend himself and he gave reply to the allegations made against him in the show cause notice. In absence of the copies of the documents required by the petitioner to be supplied, the inquiry was held and the petitioner was punished as stated above and hence this petition.