JITENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 30.9.2004 (P-7) imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 6,500/- in the time scale of Rs. 6500-10300 for a period of five years, passed by the Principal and Director, Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai (respondent No. 3), is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The aforementioned order was challenged in appeal under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Rules') and the Appellate Authority-cum-Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Sports and Youth Welfare Department, has upheld the same vide its order dated 2004.2005 (P-9). The order passed by the Appellate Authority has also been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who has been working as Math Master with the respondent School was assigned the job of House Master at the Soma House on 25.7.2003, On 15.5.2004, he was directed to shift to the accommodation earmarked for the House Master, which was on the 4th floor. The petitioner showed his difficulty to shift to the 4th floor on medical ground of having pain in knees. The aforementioned skirmish between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 led to unpleasantness and eventually a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.7.2004 (P-1). It was alleged that the petitioner has willfully disobeyed the orders of the Principal-cum-Director, respondent No. 3, which was an act of insubordination. It was further alleged that he had leveled baseless and false allegations on the authority and there was a charge of dereliction of House Master's duty affecting the well-being of the students. Shri V.C. Vats, Office Superintendent was appointed as an Enquiry Officer in order to inquire into the matter, under Rule 7 of the Rules (P-3). However, on the asking of the petitioner, he was replaced by one Major N.K. Bakshi, Bursar (Administrative Officer) of the respondent School (P-4). The Enquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 18.8.2004 (P-6) and found that all the charges stand proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority-cum-Principal and Director (respondent No. 3) agreed with the opinion expressed by the Enquiry Officer, vide his order dated 3.9.2004 (P-5) and proposed the penalty of reduction to the lower stage of pay for a period of five years. A copy of inquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with the order dated 3.9.2004. it is significant to point out that a copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner before forming an opinion accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is obvious that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority are two different individuals. In para 7 of the writ petition, the aforementioned averments have been made. However, respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the order of punishment, dated 30.9.2004 (P-7), which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority on 20.4.2005 (P-9).

(3.) The aforementioned factual position is not disputed by the respondents in their joint written statement. However, in reply to para 7 it has been asserted that the petitioner was served with second show cause notice proposing the penalty and also by handing over a copy of the inquiry report as per the procedure prescribed in the Rules. Some other details with regard to holding of inquiry and granting opportunity to the petitioner has also been given in the written statement.