Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Jai Parkash Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. Through on 14 January, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-3696/2009
New Delhi this the 14th day of January, 2011.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Sh. Jai Parkash Sharma,
S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh,
R/o A-3, Chet Ram Gali,
Mauj Pur, Delhi-53. . Applicant
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. through:
1. The Lt. Governor,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. R.N. Sharma,
Dy. Director of Education,
District East Zone,
Kamnu Vihar, B-Block,
Delhi-53.
4. Sh. Budh Singh Verma,
Vice Principal,
Govt. Co-Ed. Secondary School,
West Azad Nagar,
Delhi-51. . Respondents
(through Mrs. Renu George, Advocate)
O R D E R
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This application has been filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2009 of the Respondent No. 2 in which the representation of the applicant against the order of termination of his re-employment was rejected. His prayer is to set aside this order and to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.
2. The applicant superannuated from the service of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 31.12.2007. Pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government, he was given re-employment for a period of two years. It is his allegation that the Respondent No.4 who is the Vice-Principal of Government Co-Ed. Secondary School, West Azad Nagar, Delhi-51 where he got his re-employment in collusion with Respondent No.3 who was the Deputy Director of Education (East Zone) in-charge of his school conspired against him as he was opposed to the corrupt practices of Respondent No.4. Motivated complaints were brought against him and an inquiry was conducted behind his back. On the basis of the report of this Committee, an order of termination of his re-employment was issued on 25.04.2008. He filed OA-1259/2008 challenging this order and a direction was issued to the respondents on 24.09.2008 to treat the said O.A. as an appeal and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order. Inspite of such direction, his representation was rejected on 28.11.2008 by Respondent No.2 allegedly by passing a non-speaking order without proper application of mind. This order was challenged in OA-05/2009 in which the Respondent No.2 was again directed to pass a fresh order after dealing with all the contentions of the applicant. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.08.2009 has been passed by Respondent No.2 again rejecting the representation of the applicant as bereft of merit; hence this O.A.
3. It is stated that the direction of this Tribunal has not been complied with in letter and spirit and the contentions raised by the applicant have not been adequately discussed in the impugned order. His representation has been rejected without sufficient reasons. Further, no formal inquiry had been conducted against him and his services have been terminated without affording him an opportunity of proper hearing. He has reiterated his stand that the action of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was actuated by malice. Respondent No.4 had developed a grudge against him as he had highlighted the corrupt activities of the said respondent. It is his contention that he had demanded proper accounting of the expenditure incurred out of school funds. Therefore, Respondent No.4 bore a grudge against him and was determined to take revenge against him. He has denied the allegation of sexual harassment of students brought against him.
4. The respondents have opposed this O.A. and have stated that the re-employment given to the applicant after his superannuation was terminated on the basis of a report of a Committee, which was set up to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment of girl students received against the applicant. The Committee consisting of Senior Officers such as Dy. Director, in-charge of Zone-I, Education Officer, East-I and the Principal of another School (BR SBV Shahdara) after interacting with the students and taking the statements of the some of the students classes of X B, IX-B, VIII-B and VI-D, the statement of applicant, and the statement of the Principal of Azad Nagar School where the applicant was working came to the conclusion that there was truth in the allegations made against the applicant. The Committee suggested that he should be transferred out from the Co-Ed. School to a Boys School. However, keeping in view the gravity of the allegations and the nature of complaint received from a parent, it was decided that his re-employment should be terminated.
5. The impugned order has dealt with this aspect and stated that there were sufficient materials available on record including statements of some of the girl students of VI-D, which established that the applicant used to sexually abuse them by touching their bodies intentionally.
6. It has been stated that the allegation of denial of opportunity is not correct. The applicant was allowed to put forward his version before the Inquiry Committee. Further, there was no denial to the applicant to inspect the complaint and other materials which were relied on at the time of inquiry. It was held in the impugned order that there was no justification for holding an elaborate inquiry including further taking of statements of girl students.
7. In order to examine whether there was sufficient justification for the action taken, we called for the relevant case record from the respondents. We notice that there was, in fact, a complaint made by one Bal Krishan about sexual harassment of his daughter who was a student of Class-VI-D. The statements of girl students particulary of Class VI-D affirm the allegations made against the applicant. The applicant was also provided an opportunity to put forward his case and his statement dated 04.02.2008 made to the Committee is available in the record, where he has taken the stand that the students of Class-VI-D have been instigated to give statements against him and that the whole thing was a conspiracy against him. He has not brought out any allegations of malafide against Respondent No.4 in his statement before the Committee. Neither has he given any reason why the girl students of a class should go against him and speak about his misconduct having sexual overtones, nor how so many of them could be instigated against him. Therefore, the inference that opportunity was given to him and no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from him could not be found fault with. There is no reason why the Committee consisting of Senior Officers of the Education Department and the Principal of another school should go against him particularly when there is no specific allegation of malafide against any of them. It is seen that the Committee Members consulted the Principal of the school where the applicant was working and interacted with the students. On the basis of such interaction and statements of some of the students of Class VI-D came to the conclusion that the allegations against the applicant were not without basis.
8. Honble Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Other,[1997 (2) SCC 534] have held that termination of the services of a temporary teacher without regular departmental inquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 was justified when the allegations related to abuse of modesty of girl students and were established in preliminary inquiry. No cross-examination is called for in such a situation. In the present case a Committee of Senior Officers conducted the inquiry and found the allegations against the applicant to be true after giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct.
9. Admittedly, the applicant was under re-employment and if the services of the retired officer on re-employment was found unsatisfactory the fact of such re-employment could be reviewed. The Respondent No. 2 has given reasons justifying the action of termination. We do not find sufficient ground to interfere with this order. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member(A) Member (J)
/vv/
s