Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
Zinc Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Hema Tank - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1472 of 2018
Decided On : 23-04-2019
For the Petitioner:Punit Singhvi and Akshat Dewan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R.P. Garg and R.K. Daga, Advocates.
The court emphasized the importance of following due process and natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that the accused is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves, and that punishment orders are passed by competent authorities.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - CORPORAL PUNISHMENT - DUE PROCESS - NATURAL JUSTICE - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT, 2009 - SECTION 17 - CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION CIRCULAR NO. 20/2014/675578 DATED 06.02.2014 - RAJASTHAN NON-GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION TRIBUNAL ACT - APPEAL NO. 25/2016 - ORDER DATED 24.11.2017 - DISCHARGE OF SERVICE QUASHED - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACK WAGES ORDERED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Management challenged the order of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal (Tribunal) quashing the discharge of service order against the respondent-employee, Hema Tank, and reinstating her with back wages. The respondent-employee was accused of giving corporal punishment to students, resulting in injuries, in violation of the Right to Education Act, 2009 (Act of 2009), Section 17, and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) circular dated 06.02.2014. The petitioner-Management contended that the Tribunal erred in finding that due process and natural justice were not followed during the enquiry, that the charge of corporal punishment was not proved, that the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority, and that mala fide was alleged against the Principal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge of corporal punishment against the respondent-employee was not proved, as the petitioner-Management failed to establish that the students suffered injuries as alleged. The court also found that the respondent-employee was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend herself during the enquiry, as she was not permitted to produce documents or cross-examine witnesses. Additionally, the court held that the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority, as the Principal was not the appointing authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that due process and natural justice were not followed during the enquiry. 2. Whether the charge of corporal punishment against the respondent-employee was proved. 3. Whether the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority. 4. Whether mala fide was alleged against the Principal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Tribunal did not err in finding that due process and natural justice were not followed during the enquiry, as the respondent-employee was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend herself. 2. The court held that the charge of corporal punishment against the respondent-employee was not proved, as the petitioner-Management failed to establish that the students suffered injuries as alleged. 3. The court held that the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority, as the Principal was not the appointing authority. 4. The court held that the allegation of mala fide against the Principal was an afterthought, as it was raised for the first time in the appeal before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order quashing the discharge of service order against the respondent-employee and reinstating her with back wages.
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Management against the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. 25/2016 by which the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent-employee namely Hema Tank and has held that the order of discharge of service of the respondent-employee dated 02.03.2016 be quashed and she was held entitled to be reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-employee was issued a charge-sheet dated 12.02.2016 wherein it was alleged that on 11.02.2016 when the respondent-employee was on proxy period of Class-VIII, it was observed that she gave corporal punishment to the students by using iron scale. It was alleged that due to the said corporal punishment, around 15-16 students got injured and it resulted into cuts, bruises and painful swellings on their palms. It was alleged that students were given First Aid immediately after the incident in the Zinc Hospital. The petitioner-Management alleged the said act of the respondent - employee to be in breach of the undertaking of 2013 wherein she committed not to give corporal punishment to the students and further alleged her act to be in breach of MoU signed on 27.08.2012. The alleged act was also not said to be in confirmation of circular No. 20/2014/675578 issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education on 06.02.2014. The petitioner-Management further alleged that act of the respondent-employee was not in confirmation of compliance under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (in short "Act of 2009") and the same was in violation of Section 17 of the Act of 2009.
3. The respondent-employee had filed reply to the charge-sheet on 16.02.2016 and she pleaded that exemplary services were rendered by her since 1996 in the Institution and she was awarded several prizes on different occasions for her exemplary services. She also pleaded that she had always taken pains to give best guidance to the students with her positive attitude. The respondent-employee also did not specifically admit the charge but she only explained by writing that if her attitude was little strict, the same was adopted like a mother and she adopted tough attitude sometimes against the children, with no intention to cause any harm to them.
4. The petitioner-Management after receipt of her reply found it unsatisfactory and as such it was decided to conduct enquiry on 20.02.2016 and communication was sent to the respondent-employee that she was to remain present at the venue of enquiry along with co-worker and witness/document to defend her case. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry on 20.02.2016, 22.02.2016 & 23.02.2016 and finally he submitted the enquiry report on 23.02.2016. The respondent-employee was given show cause notice dated 24.02.2016 wherein it was informed that the charge of misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet was proved against her and the Management had decided to impose punishment on her and as such she was given show cause notice as why the punishment may not be imposed upon her.
5. The respondent-employee submitted her reply to the show cause notice dated 29.02.2016. She pleaded that she was not given due opportunity, during the enquiry proceedings and she was not satisfied with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer as neither sufficient time nor opportunity was given to her to defend herself and the same was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent-employee also pleaded that she had letters of 17 students and their guardians of Classes-VII & VIII wherein all such persons denied of giving beating to the students by the respondent-employee and such documents were required to be considered in the enquiry proceeding. The respondent-employee referred to the report of Dr. Deepak dated 1
