SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 416

Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
Shri Anant R. Kulkarni
Versus
Y.P. Education Society & Others
Civil Appeal No. 3935 of 2013
Decided On : 26-04-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Departmental enquiry - validity - fresh enquiry - enquiry after retirement.

Headnote:(a) Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Court holding invalid on technical grounds - Should permit employer to conduct enquiry from the point the same stood vitiated - However this will be warranted if gravity of misconduct so warrants. (Para 7)

        AIR 1994 SC 1074; (2002) 10 SCC 293; (2005) 8 SCC 264; AIR 2009 SC 161 - Relied upon

        (b) Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Should not be quashed only on ground of delay in conclusion of the same - Host of other factors are to be considered. (Para 8)

        AIR 1987 SC 943; AIR 1990 SC 1308; (1995) 2 SCC 570; AIR 1998 SC 1833; AIR 2006 SC 3475; AIR 2007 SC 906; AIR 2012 SC 2250; JT (2012) 11 SC 533 - Relied upon

        (c) Service Law - Departmental enquiry - Vague charges - No enquiry can be held on vague charges. (Paras 9 to 11)

        AIR 1971 SC 752; AIR 1963 SC 1723; AIR 1986 SC 995; AIR 2000 SC 3596; (2009) 12 SCC 78; (2011) 14 SCC 379 - Relied upon

        (d) Service Law - Departmental enquiry - After retirement - Permissible only if provided in the rules - Instantly no rule shown supporting the decision - More over charges were vague - Statement of allegations was not served with the charge sheet - Charges not very grave - Conclusion of the enquiry was much delayed - High Court erred in granting liberty to the employer to conduct enquiry afresh. (Paras 27 to 29)

        AIR 2011 SC 2112; AIR 1978 SC 1109; (2007) 9 SCC 15; AIR 2008 SC 1831; AIR 1965 SC 473; AIR 1937 PC 27; AIR 1970 SC 214; AIR 1986 SC 2116; AIR 1999 SC 1841; (2008) 2 SCC 41 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        Appellant a teacher was proceeded against for alleged misconduct and after enquiry was dismissed. This decision was challenged before the Tribunal.

        The Tribunal held the enquiry to be defective and illegal and quashed the dismissal order. The appellant had in the meantime retired.

        The writ court dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent society.

        The Division Bench maintained the judgment of the writ court but gave liberty to the society to initiate fresh enquiry.

       Finding of the Court:

        Impugned order cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

       

Judgment :-

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2011 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011 arising out of Writ Petition No. 1849 of 2003, by way of which the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), quashing the enquiry against the appellant, while giving liberty to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold a fresh enquiry on the charges levelled against the appellant.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. The appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school run by the respondents on 7.6.1965, and was promoted as the Head Master of the said school on 21.6.1979.

B. A new Management Committee came into power in the year 2000, and began to raise allegations of misconduct against the appellant, as the appellant had certain apprehensions with respect to the eligibility of certain office bearers of the Management Committee.

C. The respondents-management issued show-cause notice dated 21.2.2001 to the appellant, under Rule 28 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1981’), seeking an explanation as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him, for his alleged misconduct. The appellant submitted his reply on 3.3.2001, and also challenged the eligibility of some of the elected members of the Management Committee.

D. The Management Committee, vide resolution dated 4.3.2001 took a decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 36 of the Rules 1981, and in pursuance thereof, a chargesheet dated 17.5.2001 containing 12 charges of misconduct, was served upon the appellant. The appellant vide letter dated 1.7.2001, submitted his clarifications with respect to the said charges that had been levelled against him.

E. An Enquiry Committee consisting of two members instead of three, as per the Rules 1981, conducted the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 20.5.2002, making a recommendation that the appellant be dismissed from service. The said enquiry report was accepted by the Management Committee, and the services of the appellant were terminated vide order dated 24.5.2002 w.e.f. 31.5.2002.

F. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said termination order by filing Appeal No.65 of 2002, before the Tribunal. The respondents contested the appeal. However, upon reaching the age of superannuation, the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002.

G. The Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19.10.2002 held, that none of the charges levelled against the appellant stood proved, and that the enquiry had not been conducted according to the Rules 1981. Thus, the termination order against the appellant was quashed.

H. Aggrieved, the respondents-management filed Writ Petition No.1849 of 2003 before the High Court, and the learned Single Judge decided the said writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20.4.2011, upholding the judgment of the Tribunal, and found the enquiry to be entirely defective and thus, illegal. I. The respondents-management filed Letters Patent Appeal No.171 of 2011, and the Division Bench too, upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as well as that of the Tribunal, but simultaneously also held, that the respondents were at liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh, as regards the said charges.

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the charges have been found to be vague, and that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the statutory Rules 1981, and further that none of the charges reflected embezzlement or mis-appropriation, and cast no doubt upon the integrity of the appellant whatsoever. As the appellant stood retired on 30.9.2002, the question of holding a fresh enquiry










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top