Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 1151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. KARNIK, NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
Saba V.M. Da Silva S/o Late Francisco Xavier D’ Silva - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2765 of 2024
Decided On : 09-12-2024
For the Appellants : Nigel Costa Frias, Sonadevi Nishad
For the Respondents: Neehal Vernekar, A. Agni, J. Shaikh, R.G. Ramani, P. Kakodkar, S. Usgaonkar, T. Mashelkar
In disciplinary inquiries, evidence from preliminary inquiries cannot be used directly against an individual, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
Headnote:(A) CCS Rules, 1965 - Section 14 - Disciplinary procedures - Petitioner challenges the report of the High Level Fact Finding Committee and charge sheet issued based on alleged conflict of interest in G-CLAT 2023 admissions - The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining procedural integrity in disciplinary inquiries and states that evidence from preliminary inquiries cannot be used against the delinquent in regular inquiries. (Paras 16, 18 and 22)
(B) Natural justice - The court affirms that the petitioner must be given a fair opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry, and a finding from a preliminary inquiry cannot serve as the sole basis for disciplinary actions. (Paras 18 and 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an experienced lecturer, faces allegations of favoritism in admissions related to his son during G-CLAT 2023. A High Level Fact Finding Committee report concluded deficiencies in the admission process, leading to a suspension and charge sheet against the petitioner. (Paras 5-12)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the High Level Fact Finding Committee's report could serve as a basis for a disciplinary inquiry but could not be used directly to conclude guilt; the inquiry must adhere to principles of natural justice. (Paras 16, 18 and 22)
Issues: The key issues addressed include whether the findings of the fact-finding committee can be used in a disciplinary inquiry and the procedural adherence during such inquiries. (Paras 16-24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that findings from a preliminary inquiry may inform a disciplinary inquiry but cannot directly lead to punitive actions without proper procedure and opportunity for defense. It also reinforced the distinction between preliminary inquiries and formal disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 16-18)
Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; suspension upheld pending inquiry progress.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the petitioner's case (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. observations on the admissibility of preliminary inquiry findings (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. court's conclusion and directive regarding inquiry (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.
1. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally with consent of the parties.
4. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside the report of High Level Fact Finding Committee dated 18.07.2023 with other ancillary reliefs such as quashing of charge sheet dated 13.01.2024 and suspension order dated 26.07.2023 issued to the petitioner.
Facts
5. The petitioner was appointed as lecturer at Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law, Margao Goa on 20.06.2001. The Petitioner has an unblemished cumulative service record of over 30 years and has served as a teaching faculty at various colleges and educational institutions which includes a teaching experience of over 23 years. The petitioner was appointed by Goa University as Dean of the Faculty of Law w.e.f. 01.03.2020 till 27.01.2022. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 until the academic year 2019-2020 independently carried out their admission procedure for the BA LLB (integrated five year course and LLB programmes.
6. The Directorate of Higher Education in the year 2021-22 convened a meeting of Principals of respondent no.4 (V.M. Salgaonkar College of Law) and respondent no. 5 (VVM’s Govind Ramnath Kare College of Law) colleges for the admission of first year of five years BA LLB programmes, since it is under the grant-in-aid pattern of the Government. These two colleges were directed to have Common Law Admission Test (Goa-CLAT or G-CLAT) which would be conducted by one college as Nodal College and it would be alternate every year. Respondent no.6 (Vaidya Vikas Mandal) offered to be the Nodal College for the Academic year 2023-24 G-CLAT for admission of first year of five-year BA LLB course. On 25th April 2023 a meeting was convened by the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Higher Education of the Law College Principals’ and it was decided that unlike past years when the Nodal College prepared the results, this year the Directorate of Higher Education shall declare the results. On 14.6.2023 the Director of Higher Education declared the results of G-CLAT 2023 and informed respondent nos. 4 and 5 that the result of UG admission to law for the year 2023-24 has been declared.
7. The son of the petitioner was a candidate at G-CLAT 2023 for the BA LLB programmes and secured third rank. The Director of Higher Education after counseling, completed the admission process after which classes began on 19.6.2023.
8. On 2.7.2023, the petitioner saw a clipping vide WhatsApp of the Gomantak (Marathi) newspaper publication wherein it was alleged that not giving weightage to the XIIth Standard performance amounted to irregularity in G-CLAT 2023 and the same was done with ulterior motive by the petitioner to favour his son.
9. On 3.7.2023 Registrar, Goa University sent an email seeking clarification and the same was responded to by the petitioner on 3.7.2023. On 4.7.2023 the Vice Chancellor instituted a High Level Fact Finding committee to look into the conduct of the G-CLAT 2023. The High Level Fact Finding committee recorded statements of the staff members and also of Vice Chancellor. The High Level Fact Finding committee prepared a report dated 18.7.2023 wherein it was concluded that the petitioner did not follow well established procedure for preparing merit list for admission for BA LLB of 5 years course and he deviated from the well-established procedure of giving equal weight age to the marks secured at qualifying examination and the entrance examination. The petitioner was subsequently suspended vide suspension letter dated 26.07.2024. Charge sheet with major penalties under section 14 of Cen
