ASHOK KUMAR UPADHYAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prakash Padia for petitioner and Sri V.B. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Principal, Army School, Jhansi. The appointment letter dated 18.5.2001, stipulated that it will be effective from the date of joining. Lt. Col. A. N. Tripathi was earlier working as Principal. He had filed a Writ Petition No. 2170 of 2001 against an order dated 12.4.2001 terminating his services. The High Court issued an interim order staying the termination order on 31.5.2001. The petitioner's appointment, by then, was not approved by Army Welfare Education Society (A.W.E.S.), a registered body under the Societies Registration Act XXI, 1860, HQ Central Command. The petitioner was as such accommodated as a Post Graduate Teacher. Lt. Col. A. N. Tripathi resigned on 2.4.2002. The Selection Committee in its meeting on 25.9.2002, selected the petitioner. The appointment was approved by HQ, A.W.E.S. Cell, Southern Command on 21.10.2002. The petitioner joined the school on 17.9.2001 as P.G. Teacher English (Ad hoc) and was given designation as officiating Principal.

(3.) Para 117 (a) of the A.W.E.S. Rules provides for confirmation by the appointing authority, by a written order, after satisfactory completion of probation period. It appears that the Chairman of A.W.E.S., under a mistaken belief directed confirmation on 14.12.2002, on a minute sheet prepared by the petitioner himself treating that the petitioner had completed one year's probation period on 18.5.2002, whereas the petitioner had completed one year of actual service on 16.9.2002. There were certain complaints against the petitioner with regard to financial irregularities and there were allegations of sexual harassment by a lady teacher against the petitioner. The Management also received complaints that the petitioner was earning money in issuing transfer certificates. The petitioner was required to submit an explanation. The letters dated 2.6.2004 and 7.6.2004 directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry were acknowledged by the petitioner. A reply was given by him on 11.6.2004 stating that he was not physically fit to participate in the enquiry. A questionnaire was sent to the petitioner on the same day on 11.6.2004. The petitioner, however, did not choose to give reply. Each of the charges was subject to enquiries. The Enquiry No. 1 dealt with the admission of unauthorised students. The Enquiry No. 2 was with regard to collection of money from cycle stand. The Enquiry No. 3 was with regard to sexual harassment of a lady teacher and the last Enquiry No. 4 was with regard to the non-payment of tuition fees of the petitioner's sons studying in the same school. The file of harassment of the lady teacher was misplaced and as such she was required to appear and made a statement on 13.6.2004. The petitioner though living in the official accommodation of the school, did not choose to attend the proceedings. The enquiry report was submitted on 13.6.2004. His services were consequently terminated on disciplinary grounds on 14.6.2004, under Clause 186 (g) (i) of the A.W.E.S. Rules. The petitioner has not preferred an appeal under Para 171 (a) of the A.W.E.S. Rules against the disciplinary committee, to COS-Comd.