RIKHI RAM JASWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, complains that he has been dismissed from service under the garb of an innocuous order of termination passed on January 9, 1996. Is it so ? A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner who was initially working in the Education Department, State of Himachal Pradesh, was offered appointment to the "temporary post of Principal in the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti" vide letter dated August 19, 1992. It was inter alia provided that he will be "on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment extendable by another one year at the discretion of the competent authority..." A copy of this letter is on record as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. In pursuance of this offer, the petitioner joined duty at the Vidyalaya, Rokh-Jagnoo, District Udhampur (Jammu and Kashmir) on September 10, 1992. On August 17, 1993, a student Shankar Dass who was studying in Class XII at the Vidyalaya died on account of electrocution while taking a bath in the "abandoned building block" of the Vidyalaya. On November 12, 1993, Mr. Mohi Robani who was working as Principal at Bhargam, District Etawah, in U.P. was transferred to Udhampur. A copy of this order is on the record as Annexure P.7 with the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner filed a civil writ petition No. 1387 of 1993 in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other direction etc. for quashing the order dated November 12, 1993 "with further directions to the respondents thereby commanding them not to disturb/transfer" him from the present posting "on the basis of the impugned order dated 12.11.1993." The Court directed the issue of notice to show cause. It also ordered that "the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his place of posting." On February 11, 1994, the petitioner was suspended from service. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P.10. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 433 of 1994. Vide order dated February 28, 1994, the court directed the issue of notice to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. It was further directed that "no action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 11.2.1994 and he shall be allowed to continue on the post." On April 27, 1994, the respondents withdrew the order of suspension. A copy of this order is on the record as Annexure P.14. On May 15, 1994, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. A copy of this document is on record as Annexure P.11. Two charges were levelled against him. Firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner had "failed to take adequate steps to get the electricity connection of the abandoned building block of JNV-Rakh Jaganoo District Udhampur disconnected or to prevent the students of the Vidyalaya from entering this building which resulted in the tragic death of a student namely Master Shankar Dass, a student of Class XII of the Vidyalaya by electrocution while taking a bath in the said building". The second charge was that while functioning as Principal, the petitioner had "allowed the driver of Vidyalaya vehicle to stay outside the Vidyalaya campus thereby violating instructions issued by the Samiti in this regard. By his failure to comply with the written directions of the Samiti, Shri R. R. Jaswal is guilty of wilful disobedience of the Samiti's instructions and has thus shown lack of devotion to duty". The petitioner alleges that he had filed reply to the charge sheet. On January 16, 1995, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Deputy Director, Regional Office, Chandigarh was appointed as the authority "to inquire into the charges levelled against" the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner challenged the validity of this order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 133 of 1995. The Court directed the issue of notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted to hearing. It was further directed that the enquiry officer shall not proceed further in the matter. On August 8, 1995, the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. A copy of the order is at Annexure P.17/A with the writ petition.

(3.) In the meantime, the petitioner was conveyed adverse report for the year 1993-94 vide letter dated March 9, 1995. His academic proficiency was described as 'poor'. The organising ability was 'very poor'. It was also observed that the petitioner had not "followed the rules for purchasing". His overall grading was - "Below Average". The petitioner represented against these remarks on March 19, 1995. A copy of the representation is at Annexure P.19 with the writ petition. On October 30, 1995, adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner for the year ending June, 1995. Various defects were pointed out. He was graded as an 'Average Principal'. He submitted a representation. A copy of the representation which does not bear any date is Annexure P.24 with the writ petition. Almost simultaneously, vide letter dated December 14, 1995, the petitioner was informed that the writ petition challenging the departmental proceedings having been dismissed, the enquiry had been fixed for January 3, 1996. The petitioner was asked to furnish the list of documents/witnesses by December 28, 1995. On December 29, 1995, the petitioner submitted an application for change of Enquiry Officer. He stated that he would not be participating in the proceedings on January 3, 1996. A copy of this letter is on record as Annexure P.27. On January 9, 1996, the impugned order terminating his services was passed. The petitioner challenges this order on various grounds which shall be presently noticed. He prays that the order be quashed with all consequential benefits.