The importance of fair hearing and precise charges in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged impugned order dtd. 19/2/2020 (Annexure-A) passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in M.A.(E.A.T) No.01/2008, allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent - employee.

2. Brief facts in nut shell are that, the respondent, while working as Head Master in Shaha Narayanaji Khanji Primary School, run by the petitioner Management, received the communication from the petitioner Management, whereby, certain charges have been leveled against the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the respondent are proved and accordingly, the petitioner Management, dismissed the 1st respondent from service on 14/1/2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent has filed M.A.(EAT) No.1/2008, before the District Judge and Educational Appellate Tribunal, Haveri and the Tribunal by its order dtd. 19/3/2010, dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent herein vide Annexure-H. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent herein has filed W.P.No.66490/2011 before this Court and this Court by order dtd. 27/4/2016, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording fair opportunity to the 1st respondent herein. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the Tribunal, reheard the matter afresh and passed impugned order dtd. 19/2/2020 (Annexure-A), allowing the appeal and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Management has presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Management, Sri.Anant P. Savadi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent - delinquent and Sri. M. H. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the 2nd respondent State.

4. Sri. Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the Tribunal, solely relied upon the four criminal cases pending consideration before the competent court and arrived at a conclusion to exonerate the 1st respondent and the said finding is incorrect. He further contended that, the Tribunal has not properly assessed the evidence on record and therefore, the impugned order is not a speaking order. It is the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 are the charges leveled against the respondent herein, which are specific and clear and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have looked into the imputation of charges, before arriving at the conclusion to justify the action of the petitioner Management. He further contended that, enquiry has been conducted fairly after affording opportunity to the 1st respondent - delinquent and therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal requires to be interfered in this writ petition.

5. Per contra, Sri. Anant P. Savadi, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent - delinquent, argued that, the Tribunal, after considering the material on record, arrived at a conclusion, which cannot be disturbed in the writ proceedings. He further contended that, no notice was issued prior to issuance of the charge memo produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition and therefore, the Management has predetermined to remove the respondent from the service and therefore he contended that, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of the petitioner Management. He further contended that, though the Tribunal has made an observation relating to the criminal cases pending consideration before the competent court, however, the same cannot be equated with the proceedings before the departmental enquiry, as the nature of the proceedings, evidence, and assessment of the evidence is quite distinct and therefore, the Tribunal, after considering the material, which are made available before the Enquiry Officer, has looked into and rightly set aside the order of removal. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of