Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dilip Kr Surana vs M/O Human Resource Development on 28 January, 2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 2557/2014
New Delhi, this the 28th day of January, 2020
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
Daleep Kumar Surana (Bairwa), Aged 49 years,
Physical Education Teacher,
S/o Ram Bharosi Lal,
R/o Plot No.188, Raghunathpuri-II,
Near Airport Sanganer,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302011 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Sachin Chuahan)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Chairman,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Human Resources Development,
Department of Secondary & Higher Education,
B-15, Institutional Area,
Sector-62, NOIDA,
GB Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201309
4. The Deputy Director,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti,
Human Resources Development,
Department of Education,
Govt. of India, Bay No: 26-27, Sector-31A,
Chandigarh - Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri S. Rajappa)
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant joined the service of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) as Physical Education Teacher (PET) on 30.10.1995.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, by issuing a charge memo dated 17.03.2003. Five Articles of Charge were framed. Since the applicant denied the allegations made against him, an Inquiry Officer (IO) was appointed. In his report dated 05.12.2004, the IO held that the Articles of Charge 2 to 5 are proved and Article of Charge 1 is not proved. Copy of the report was made available to the applicant and on consideration of the representation made by him, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passed an order dated
02.02.2005, imposing the punishment of removal. The appeal preferred against the order of removal was partly allowed on 09.06.2005, and the punishment was modified to the one, of reduction to the lowest of the scale of pay for a period of three years. It was also directed that the applicant shall not earn increments during the operation of the punishment.
2. The applicant approached the SC/ST Commission. It is stated that one of the Members of the Commission recommended that the issue pertaining to the applicant be given a re-look. It is stated that a Committee comprising of two officers belonging to SC category was constituted and the Committee, in turn, submitted a report on 13.05.2011, taking the view that the plea of the applicant that he was harassed on account of his social status, is not proved. It, however, made a recommendation that the increments, which were denied to the applicant, can be restored.
3. The Commissioner, NVS, passed an order dated 29.011.2011 by referring to the various developments as well as the view taken by the Minister HRD and expressed its inability to implement the recommendations made by the aforesaid Committee for restoration of the increments. This OA is filed, challenging the order of punishment as modified by the Appellate Authority (AA) as well as the order dated 29.11.2011.
4. The applicant contends that once the Committee, which has examined the entire issue, made a recommendation for restoration of the increments, the respondents were under obligation to restore the same and even otherwise, the order of punishment as modified by the AA cannot be sustained in law.
5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the OA. It is stated that with the disposal of the appeal preferred by the applicant, wherein the punishment of removal was modified to the one of reduction in pay scale, the matter has assumed finality and the applicant cannot claim any further relief. It is also stated that what transpired between the Members of the SC/ST Committee and the Commissioner, NVS, cannot constitute basis for granting any relief.
6. We heard Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. Rajappa, learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant way back in the year 2003. The articles of charge framed again him read as under:-
"ARTICLE-I That Mr. Daleep Kumar while working as PET at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kazra, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) gave corporal punishment to the students as a result of which some of the students ran away from the Vidyalay. Thus the said Shri Daleep Kumar indulged in an act of subversive of discipline by giving corporal punishment, thereby contravening Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable to the employees of NVS.
ARTICLE-II That Mr. Daleep Kumar while working as PET at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Odhan, District Sirsa (Hry.) was alleghed for using abusive, filthy and unparliament language to the students, fellow teachers. He used to share vulgar jokes with the students and passing uncharitable remarks on fellow female teachers as well as girl students. He also misbehaved and threatened the Principal to impose a case of schedule caster harassment. Thus he has acted in a manner not becoming of an employee of NVS thereby, contravening Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 as applicable to the employees of Navodya Vidyalaya Samiti.
ARTICLE-III That while working at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ganderbal, District Srinagar (J&K) he was alleged for abusing and threatening fellow staff, continuous torture of students, insulting and using vulgar languages for girls students. Thus he has acted in a manner not becoming of an employee of NVS thereby contravening Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable to the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.
Article -IV That Mr. Daleep Kumar while working as PET at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Shahkote, District Baramulla (J&K) has involved in undesirable activities, using abusive and filthy language to the students as per written statement given by the students of class X namely Saima, Mohsina, Shameena, Sakeena, Aabide, Eshrol, Lutane on 31.10.2002. He refused to acknowledge the lawful orders of the Principal. Thus he indulged in act of discipline by disobedience of lawful orders and thereby contravening the provision of rule 3 (1) (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as application the employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.
Article-V That Mr. Daleep Kumar while working as PET at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Shahkote, Distrfict Baramulla (J&K) believes in violence often speaks of body languages against the students and staff. He is devoid of skill, applicable of mind, humor and understanding. Jealousy, anger and boasting are imbibed in him as apprised by the concerned Principal vide his letter dated 664 dated 02.11.2002. Thus he has acted in a manner not becoming of an employee of NVS thereby contravening Rule 3 (1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable the employees of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti."
8. In the departmental inquiry, except Article 1, rest of the articles of charge were held proved. The DA imposed the punishment of removal from service. The AA modified the punishment to the one of reduction of pay scale to be forced for a period of three years and forfeiting the increments, referable to that period. The applicant did not pursue further remedy vis-à-vis the said order. He approached the SC/ST Commission. There again no specific finding as to harassment on account of the social status of the applicant was given. What transpired between a member of the SC/ST Commission and the Commissioner, NVS and the developments thereafter are contained in the following paragraphs of the order dated 29.11.2011:-
And whereas, the said two member committee submitted its report dated 13.05.2011, in which it was concluded that the contention of Shri Dilip Kumar Surana (Balrwa), that he was harassed on caste line was baseless. However, committee has recommended for taking a lenient view on Shri Dilip Kumar Surana (Bairwal), by taking into account his contribution at JNV Lahaul Spiti and suggested to allow increments of pay to him during the period of his penalty subject to the provisions of rules.
And whereas, giving effect to the recommendations the aforesaid Committee would mean revising the order of the Appellate Authority. The Commissioner, NVS being the Appellate Authority in the instant case cannot revise his own order. Moreover the Appellate Authority had passed its order on 13.06.2005 and Shri Dilip Kumar Surana (Bairwa) did not challenge the said order in time, rather he submitted his representation in the year 2010 that too after completion of the penalty period. It was therefore, decided that the case be referred to the authority higher than the Commissioner, NVS for appropriate decision. Accordingly, it was referred to Hon'ble Minister of HRD & Chairman of NVS for due consideration of the representation of Shri Dilip Kumar Surana (Bairwa).
And whereas, the Hon'ble Minister of HRD & Chairman of NVS having examined the case has recorded his decision as under:-
"The disciplinary proceedings against Shri D.K. Bairwa, PET had acquired finality with the passage of the order in appeal by the competent authority on 13.6.2005. The recommendations of an ad-hoc committee cannot form the basis for overriding or modifying the decision arrived at after due process followed in the disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of six years."
Now therefore, in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances the representation of Shri Dilip Kumar Surana (Bairwa), praying for his acquittal from all the charges and restoration of increments of pay stand disposed of without any relief."
9. It is after the passing of this order, that the applicant filed the OA. The order of punishment is also challenged in the OA.
10. We have extracted the articles of charge framed against the applicant. After taking into account the material placed before him, the IO held Articles of Charge 2 to 5 as proved. A perusal of the Articles, which were held proved, discloses that the applicant is not only in the habit of passing uncharitable remarks against female fellow teachers, but also using vulgar language against the girl students. Statements in that behalf were also recorded from the girl students.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Ors. v. Babban Prasad Yadav and Anr. (2004)13 SCC 568, came down heavily on the teachers who were found to have resorted to such acts, i.e., misbehaviour towards girl students. The invocation of Article 81B, dispensing with regular inquiry, was upheld.
12. In the instant case, the respondents have conducted detailed inquiry and findings were recorded. Though the DA imposed the punishment of removal, the AA has shown indulgence and has reduced the punishment.
13. The applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of SC/ST Commission by alleging that he has been discriminated on account of his being an SC candidate. Not only the Commission did not find any substance in the plea but also the Committee, which was constituted by the Administration of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, comprising of two officers belonging to SC, found that the plea of the applicant is without any basis. The recommendation made as regards the restoration of the increments did not have any statutory force or strength. All the same, the Commissioner took the matter at various levels and at the highest level, it was decided that the same is not feasible for compliance.
14. We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(A.K. Bishnoi) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /lg/