Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.J. Kochar, J.
Principal, B.M. Ruia Mahila Mahavidyalaya another.... Petitioners.
Versus
Nini Gulla (Mrs.) others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1745 of 1998, decided on 22-1-2001.
Advocates appeared :
J.P. Cama i/b. N.M. Ganguli, for petitioners.
M.P. Vashi, for respondent No. 1.
What is more significant is the fact the teacher did not examine herself to deny the allegations on oath. Nor did she examine witness in her favour. It is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Vashi that the Tribunal had committed any error in holding the aforesaid two charges as proved. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence and has come to a definite conclusion that these two charges were proved. These findings are based on evidence and material, which is quite sufficient to hold that the findings were not perverse and it is not the case of lack of or absence of any material before the Tribunal. Though Shri Vashi has tried to run down the witnesses by calling them names, it is not possible to accept any such contention that all of themo had ganged up against the teacher without any rhyme or reason. If late coming of the teachers is allowed and is condoned, it would be very difficult for the management to maintain strict time schedule and finally it would be extremely difficult for the management to see that the whole syllabus is completed within the prescribed period. No late coming can be tolerated and late coming upsets the whole schedule of everything in the life. This is a question of habitual late coming and not once or twice in a while. Both these charges are serious and there has been preponderance of evidence to come to a conclusion that the charges have been rightly accepted by the management. Therefore, Court is inclined to quash and set aside the order of Tribunal granting reinstatement with 2/3rd back-wages to the teacher. Court need not cite any authorities or judgments on the points that out of several charges levelled against a delinquent workman/employee/servant if even one charge is proved it is enough to sustain the order of punishment. According to him, the charges which were levelled against her and the material which was in possession of the management on the basis of which those charges were levelled, was enough to lose confidence in the teacher. The company had led evidence and placed material before the Labour Court and it was held by the Labour Court that the company was justified in losing confidence in the workman. It was held that there was sufficient material on the basis of which the company had lost confidence in the workman. Once Act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstalling the employees in service.
2. The learned tribunal has set aside the order of termination of service of the teacher passed by the management and reinstated her with 2/3rd backwages. The Tribunal further passed an order to substitute the order of termination by a minor penalty of reprimand, warning and censure.
3. The management has challenged the entire order of reinstatement with 2/3rd backwages while the teacher has challenged the same in another petition for having been denied the remaining 1/3rd backwages and imposition of minor punishment by the Tribunal.
4. I have heard both the learned Counsel at quite a length. Both the learned Counsel insisted to refer to even minor facts and also the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry held by him at the instance of the management. Both the learned Counsel have also cited a number of decisions in support of their respective contentions. It is an admitted fact that the teacher was appointed in the year 1981 as a Lecturer and according to her, she was performing her duties quite satisfactorily, without any grievance, complaint or blemish in her service record. According to her, it was in the year 1993, when the earlier Principal of the college retired, she staked her claim to the post of the Principal as a senior most qualified and eligible candidate for the said post and from that point onwards she became eye-sore for the management as it wanted to appoint the present Principal as their own candidate. According to the teacher, she had opposed the said appointment and, therefore, she invited wrath of the management which finally resulted in issuance of a charge-sheet on 20th April, 1994, whereby several charges were levelled against her. She submitted her written explanation/reply to the charge-sheet, denying the charges as false, vindictive and mala fide and made with a view to victimise her. The management, not satisfied with the reply of the teacher, proceeded to hold an enquiry in the charges. The management appointed the respondent No. 5 as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry in the charges levelled against the teacher. The respondent No. 5 is a practising Advocate of this Court and is also a member of the Managing Committee of the institution. I have mentioned this fact as it is one of the allegations of the teacher that the Enquiry Officer was a biased person being a part and parcel of the college management and therefore, he did not hold fair and proper enquiry. The enquiry was completed and the management on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the teacher from service by its order dated 21st February, 1995.
5. The teacher filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of dismissal and prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. After hearing the parties, the tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the teacher and directed the management to reinstate the teacher in service with continuity of service and full backwages by its judgement and order dated 30th September, 1996. It appears that the main grievance of the teacher against the enquiry was that she was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, allegedly examined before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, the enquiry suffered from serious violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also her case that though from record it appears that 21 witnesses had given their statements in the enquiry, in fact, such statements were never made before the Enquiry Officer in her presence and that all such statements were recorded behin
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
