Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH.N, J.
K. Shankaraiah – Appellant
Versus
A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad and others – Respondent
WP No.3857 of 2014
Decided on : 13-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.V. Raja Raam
For the Respondent: Government Pleader for Social Welfare
The court upheld that adherence to procedures in disciplinary matters is vital for ensuring justice and protecting vulnerable individuals; failure to follow these can lead to significant legal consequences.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Rights of individuals in service matters - Principles of natural justice - Petition challenging suspension without proper enquiry and opportunity for cross-examination. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 13, 14)
(B) Importance of adherence to disciplinary procedures in service matters. (Paras 8, 13, 14)
(C) Responsibility of educational institutions to ensure safety and protection of students, with emphasis on gender-sensitive protocols. (Paras 17, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Cook at a residential school since 1986, challenges disciplinary action taken against him for allegations of misconduct towards minor students, asserting a lack of proper enquiry and violation of natural justice principles. The respondents argue that an enquiry was conducted, and appropriate action was taken in light of serious allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court found no significant procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process and emphasized the necessity of maintaining safety in educational institutions, dismissing the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The main issues included whether the disciplinary proceedings followed due process and the adequacy of evidence in light of serious accusations of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due process was adhered to in the disciplinary proceedings, observing that claims of misconduct against minors possess unique considerations and that the lack of corroborative evidence does not diminish the validity of the allegations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed without costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to proceedings against appellant (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural unfairness (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents' defense of procedural validity (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and procedure (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. recommendations for child protection in schools (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. court's final order and dismissal of appeal (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.04.2013 passed by the 1st respondent and the orders passed by the 4th respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.08.2013.
2. The petitioner was working as a Cook in the 2nd respondent residential school on daily wages from 09.09.1986. Subsequently his services were regularized. The petitioner was discharging the duties of a watchman though he was recruited as a Cook.
3. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 02.09.2011 after considering the report of the Zonal Officer issued the orders of suspension of the petitioner pending conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. The petitioner was issued the show-cause notice dated 14.09.2011 and the articles of charge alongwith the other annexure were furnished to the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no enquiry conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned proceedings dated 11.04.2013. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of CCA Rules for conducting the enquiry.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses was afforded. It is also submitted that there is no complaint from the alleged victim and that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on a hearsay complaint(s). It is further submitted that all the girl students whose statements were recorded have not stated having witnessed the incident. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner was victimized and targeted by the 2nd respondent for reasons better known to the 2nd respondent.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts have been consistently holding that any major punishment imposed without conducting an enquiry deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that any major punishment imposed without following the procedure as contemplated under rules has to be set aside. It is further submitted that in the present case the petitioner was denied principles of natural justice in not making available the witnesses for cross-examination.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the respondents is unknown to the service jurisprudence and as such prays for setting aside the impugned proceedings and hence prays for consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner together with all consequential benefits including seniority etc.
9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents submits that the petitioner is facing major and serious allegations. The incident occurred at 04.00 a.m., in the morning on 24.07.2011 when the girl child studying 8th Class got up early in the morning and while she was going to her sister's room in the first floor of the hostel, the petitioner caught hold of her and pulled her towards him. The girl child bit his hand and rushed to her room, thereafter, she informed her parents who in turn requested the principal to take action against the petitioner.
10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that enquiry was conducted by the Zonal Officer and charges were framed against the petitioner. An enquiry as contemplated under law was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and also submitted his arguments, as such, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not granted any opportunity. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that sever
