SURYA KUMAR KOKATE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:-

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Upper Division Teacher (UDT) in Pratap Higher Secondary School, Lashkar Gwalior. On the allegation of misbehaviour with the Principal Sarnam Singh, by order dtd. 12/5/1994 respondent No. 4 placed the petitioner under suspension and also lodged an FIR in the police station. Thereafter, charge-sheet was issued by the respondent No. 4 containing 20 charges. Copy of the charge-sheet has been placed on record. It is the case of the petitioner that charge Nos. 1 to 11 pertains to the years 1974 to 1988. Regarding charge Nos. 12 to 17, no day, date of incident were mentioned in the charge-sheet. So far as charge No. 18 is concerned, the petitioner has already been acquitted by the Trial Court and, therefore, charge Nos. 19 and 20 have been levelled in violation of the rules and laws. The petitioner was never supplied with the list of witnesses as well as list of documents. Shri S.D. Sharma, Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Bhind was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri Sarnam Singh Yadav (complainant), Principal Pratap Higher Secondary School, Gwalior was appointed as Presenting Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that Sarnam Singh Yadav could not have been appointed as Presenting Officer because not only, he was the complainant, but he has also lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Sarnam Singh Yadav also appeared as a witness in the departmental inquiry, therefore, it is clear that the Presenting Officer, who not only was the complainant but had also appeared as a witness. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the Inquiry Officer supplied the documents and whatever documents were supplied to the petitioner, were totally illegible, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application dtd. 24/10/1994 to the respondent No. 4 for supply of legible documents. However, again illegible documents were supplied. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 12/12/1994 and submitted that the misconduct already disposed of or waived for any reason cannot be revived. The petitioner denied the charges levelled from Serial Nos. 1 to 17 which were 15 to 18 years old. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer did not provide opportunity of hearing and accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 12/12/1994 to the respondent No. 3. He also requested for providing him the defence assistance. The petitioner further made representations to the respondent No. 3 on 13/12/1994 and 21/1/1995 and prayed that on the basis of M.P. Government Gazette dtd. 18/5/1997, an employer shall not be competent to initiate the proceedings against an employee for major misconduct after one year and for a minor misconduct after six months of its commission and it was prayed that charges Nos. 1 to 18 be deleted from the charges and modified charge-sheet may be provided. The petitioner had also given specific examples of corrupt practices by Inquiry officer and requested to change the same as he was not fair and impartial. The Inquiry Officer Shri Satyadev Sharma was an old friend of Shri Sarnam Singh Yadav, Presenting Officer. He deliberately joined hands with the Presenting Officer Sarnam Singh and, accordingly, he indulged himself in unfair inquiry proceedings. The petitioner also submitted a representation dtd. 13/2/1995 to the respondent No. 3 to change the Inquiry officer, but nothing was done and accordingly, the petitioner was removed from service by order dtd. 21/6/1995. Against the order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by order dtd. 9/9/2005 which was received by the petitioner on 8/10/2005.

(3.) The respondents have filed their return and claimed that the order of punishment has been passed after following due procedure of law. Ample opportunity of hearing was given. It is submitted that against the order of termination, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by order dtd. 10/11/2000 by holding that no illegality was committed by the competent authority. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No.276/2001 and the said petition was partially allowed by this Court by order dtd. 23/9/2004 and the order dtd. 10/11/2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to decide the appeal afresh. Accordingly, in compliance of order dtd. 23/9/2004, the Commissioner, Public Instructions reconsidered the case of the petitioner and also afforded opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also appeared before the Appellate Authority and submitted his written arguments. The Appellate Authority after considering the material available on record as well as considering the arguments advanced by both the parties reached to the conclusion that services of the petitioner have been rightly terminated.