PINESHBHAI AMRUTLAL PATEL Vs. EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.02.2011, passed by the Administrative Officer, Taluka Primary Education Committee, the first respondent herein and the order dated 22.06.2011, passed by the Tribunal, confirming the order of the first respondent by which the petitioner has been removed from service.

(2.) The petitioner, who was at the relevant point of time holding the educational qualification of having passed the Secondary School Certificate ("SSC") Examination, was appointed as an Untrained Teacher by the Municipal School Board, Anand, on 12.11.1990. The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Teacher in the year 1995, after having cleared the PTC Course. The petitioner was posted in Municipal School No.7 when the incident, leading to the passing of the order of removal from service, took place. It so transpired that on 20.01.2011, a girl student studying in Class VII in the Municipal School No.7 (hereinafter referred to as the girl student) submitted a written complaint to the Head Master of the said school, alleging that the petitioner, who was her teacher, had taken her alone to an empty classroom and molested her. He had further threatened the girl student not to disclose the incident to anyone. The mother of the girl student also addressed a complaint to the Head Master of the school on the same day, regarding the incident that had taken place with her daughter. A Show Cause Notice dated 20.01.2011 was issued to the petitioner who, in a written statement, admitted his guilt and asked for pardon, while promising that he would not behave in such a manner in future. Respondent No.1 immediately forwarded the entire record to the Director of Primary Education, the third respondent herein, along with a forwarding letter dated 21.01.2011. Respondent No.3, vide his letter dated 04.02.2011, stated that as the incident was a serious one, appropriate action to bring the services of the petitioner to an end may be initiated. A second detailed Show Cause Notice dated 09.02.2011 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to explain why he ought not to be removed from service. The petitioner was asked to appear in person on 11.02.2011, to render his explanation. It is not clear from the record whether the petitioner appeared personally, or not. However, it is an undisputed position that he did not submit any explanation in his defence. The first respondent, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947, consisting of the Chairman of the School Board and Education Inspector of the District. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner took the stand by filing an affidavit, that he was forced to give the statement admitting his guilt under pressure, although the incident had never taken place. He further alleged that the girl student, who was mentally retarded, had failed the previous year. Nursing a grudge over this, the girl student and her parents had falsely accused the petitioner. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal rejected the appeal by the impugned order dated 22.06.2011, confirming the order of removal from service passed by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Mr.Mitesh L. Rangras, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental inquiry, as envisaged by Rules 6 and 8 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1997 ("the Panchayat Rules") was carried out against the petitioner. According to him, even as per the proviso to Rule 63(2)(b) of the Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949, no order of removal from service can be passed until and unless an enquiry has been made as per the procedure envisaged in the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. In the present case, no Chargesheet was served and the necessary procedure of a departmental inquiry was not followed before passing the impugned order. As per the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner, the principles of natural justice have thus been violated.