Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Secretary Managing Committee BSMPG College Roorkee – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Samrat Sharma and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6189 of 2019, SLP (Civil) No. 32520 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2019
(a) Service law - Departmental enquiry - Conducted in three stages - Preliminary enquiry, fact finding enquiry and the final enquiry after supplementary charge sheet containing fresh charges - Final report submitted and order of termination passed within ten days of supplementary charge sheet - Held, respondent 1 not given adequate opportunity in violation of prescribed procedure vitiating the enquiry and punishment - High Court rightly set aside the order of termination and directed consequential benefits - However, appellant-college permitted to conduct fresh enquiry. (Para 12)
(b) Administration of justice - Judicial review - The decision making process and not the decision itself can be the subject matter of judicial review - Held, High Court not transgressed its jurisdiction in appreciating sufficiency of evidence before enquiry committee. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant is a private aided college, affiliated to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University. Respondent No. 1 was an Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the Department of Hindi in the said College. Respondent No. 5-Dr. (Smt.) Kamlesh Sharma made a complaint to the Principal of the College on 04.09.2012 alleging misbehavior by Respondent No. 1 during the meeting of the teaching staff of the College. Enquiry committee was constituted to inquire into charges leveled by respondent -5. In spite of the opportunity given to Respondent No. 1 to defend himself, he did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee came to a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 used indecent language and behaved in an aggressive manner in the staff meeting on 01.09.2012. As Respondent No. 1 was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the Enquiry Committee recommended initiation of action against Respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Committee also recommended criminal prosecution to be launched against Respondent No. 1.
Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was issued.
The Enquiry Committee found that the charges levelled against Respondent No. 1 were proved. The Enquiry Committee recommended stern action against Respondent No. 1 for indulging in the acts of insubordination, indiscipline and violation of the First Statutes and the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. The services of Respondent No. 1 were terminated. The approval of the Vice Chancellor, HNBGC University, Srinagar was sought by the BSM (PG) College, Roorkee (Haridwar)-Appellant herein, which was granted.
Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the order of termination of his services dated 13.07.2014 and the approval granted by the Vice Chancellor as also his suspension pending departmental enquiry.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
Termination order of respondent 1 is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. The judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand allowing the Writ Petition filed by Respondent No. 1-Dr. Samrat Sharma and setting aside the order of termination of the services of Respondent No. 1 is in challenge in this Appeal. The High Court directed the reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 with all consequential benefits.
2. The Appellant is a private aided college, affiliated to Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal Central University, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal (for short “the HNBG University”). Respondent No. 1 was an Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the Department of Hindi in the said College. Respondent No. 5-Dr. (Smt.) Kamlesh Sharma made a complaint to the Principal of the College on 04.09.2012 alleging misbehavior by Respondent No. 1 on 01.09.2012 during the meeting of the teaching staff of the College. An explanation was sought from Respondent No. 1 which was submitted on 12.10.2012. Not being satisfied with the explanation given by Respondent No. 1, the Managing Committee of the College decided to constitute a committee to enquire into the charges levelled by Respondent No. 5 in her letter dated 04.09.2012. Dr. I.D. Kansal and Mr. K.S. Sharma, Members of the Managing Committee were requested to conduct an enquiry. The statement of Respondent No. 5 and other witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Committee. In spite of the opportunity given to Respondent No. 1 to defend himself, he did not appear before the Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee came to a conclusion that Respondent No. 1 used indecent language and behaved in an aggressive manner in the staff meeting on 01.09.2012. As Respondent No. 1 was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the Enquiry Committee recommended initiation of action against Respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Committee also recommended criminal prosecution to be launched against Respondent No. 1.
3. On the basis of the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee, three charges were framed against Respondent No. 1 which are as follows:
“CHARGE NO. 01 - PARA 04 OF COMPLAINT LETTER DATED 04.09.2012:-
On 01.09.2012 at 10.00 O’clock in the morning, the Principal had called a meeting of his entire teaching staff in the Principal room. At the very same, in your presence, Dr. Samrat Sharma, Assistant Professor, Hindi Department has leveled allegations against me with regard to the time table and he has used very filthy words to me in a very aggressive manner and thus he has behaved me like that without any reason. The said time table had been prepared according to his consent.
CHARGE NO. 02 - PARA 06 OF COMPLAINT LETTER DATED 04.09.2012:-
“Apart in your room, he has conducted same indecent behavior in the Staff room also. He has developed such a habit to behave like this with the female teachers. Such act is generally done by a person who has lost his mental balance. There is a clear example that his wife Smt. Jayanti Adjariya alongwith his son has left his house and for which cases are going on between them in the Courts at Roorkee, Jhansi, Nainital and Allahabad.
CHARGE NO. 03 - Para No. 7 of Complaint Letter Dated 04.09.2012:-
Due to this continuous insult and mental harassment, I, who is a senior most teacher who has 38 years of teaching experience, and who has been looking after/ performing the administrative duties and responsibilities of a Vice President while you go on leave, request you to kindly protect my dignity and seniority.”
4. Respondent No. 1 was informed that he should submit his written statement by 14.02.2014. Respondent No. 1 was also given an opportunity to produce witnesses in his defense. He was also informed that he can crossexamine the witnesses during the fact-finding enquiry by a committee consisting of Dr. Dushyant Kumar, Vice President of the Managing Committee and Mr. Vikash Sharma, Advocate. The Fact Finding Committee submitted its report on 14.02.2014 holding Respondent No. 1 guilty of all the three charges. The Committee recommended
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
