Delhi High Court
Thomas George vs Council For Indian School on 16 July, 1998
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K.Ramamoorthy
ORDER K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 06.12.1995 and the order confirming the same by the Appellate Authority (Executive Committee of the first respondent) dismissing the appeal. The petitioner's case could be briefly stated in the following. He joined the first respondent as Stenographer cum Office Assistant on 15.12.1992. He has been sincere and devoted to his work as promoted to the post of Section Superintendent. His work was commended by the Secretary of the first respondent. Three appreciations were on 05.09.1983, 07.08.1990 and 02.08.1991 and they are as follows:
Annexure -1A /Per/1320 dt. 5 September 83 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Shri Thomas George s/o Shri Idickala George, B-87, Qutab Enclave, New Delhi - 110 016 is working with is Council as Stenographer-cum-P.A. to the Secretary from 14.10.1982. We find him hard working and sincere. The efficiency of Shri Thomas in discharging the work with utmost care and accuracy is appreciable.
We wish him all success.
Annexure -1B
/Per/90 7 August 1990
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This to certify that Mr. Thomas George, s/o Shri K. George, has been working in this Council since 15th October 1982.At present he is working as Private Secretary to the Secretary cum Section Superintendent.
He is very hardworking, punctual and honest. Whatever duties are assigned to him, he carries out with personal interest and commitment. The efficiency of Mr. Thomas George in discharging the work with utmost care and accuracy is appreciable.
I would not like him to leave the Council unless, of course, it is to better his future.
Annexure 1-C
2 August 1991
Secretary
Reference Note of Mr. Thomas George dated 16 July, 1991.
1. Mr. George reported that he found four blank Statement of Marks of the ISC-12 examination in a file which had been taken out for processing affiliation.
2. On receipt of the above mentioned note we instituted an enquiry into the matter and found that al 'Statement of Marks' have been accounted for.
3. There had been apparently a slip in one of the sections handling blank mark sheets which is the reason for the reported lapse.
4. Steps have been taken to streamline the procedure of accounting for the blank pass certificate and statement of marks.
5. The timely information provided by Mr. Thomas George is commendable.
2. With a view to improving his prospectus in his career he joined correspondence course for MA degree (Political Science) of the Mysore University under the Open University Scheme. He has aged parents in Kerala. In the year 1994, the petitioner had applied for 39 days earned leave and 69 days medical leave to his credit.
3. On 07.04.1994, he submitted his application for 30 days earned leave from 21.04.1994 to 20.05.1994 and left for his home town in Kerala. While he was on leave the petitioner received a programme for examination between 14.05.1994 and 26.05.1994 which is in the following:
p.m. p.m 14.5.1994 -2.00 - 5.00 Comparative Government 19.5.1994 -do- Contemporary Pol.Science 21.5.1994 -do- Recent Political Theory 24.5.1994 -do- Development Administration 26.5.1994 -do- Public Personnel Admn.
4. In or about the 10th of t ll sick. He went to Thiruvananthahe May 1994, he fehe venue for the examination. Two puram which was tte which fell during the earned leapers he could write papers had to be written after ave period and thre. He wanted extension for six more the period of leave sent an application for medical l days. Therefore, 4. At the time of arguments the leave from 21.05.199he petitioner submitted that when learned counsel for tan application he did not send the he petitioner sent e. The medical certificate was give medical certificated Delhi when he reported for due on after he reached learned counsel submitted what ity. Therefore, t.3 that the petitioner sent the apps stated in para 7al leave for 11 days from 21.05lication for medicine medical certificate dated 12.05.1994 enclosing tke committed by the learned counsel.1994 was a misters stated that he had orally informed. The petitioner has stated that he had orally informed the Secretary about he has written the examinations .
5. On 16.08.1994, a charge-sheet was issued. The petitioner had submitted his explanation but is not placed on record. On 24.8.1995, a notice was issued stating that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and, therefore, the first respondent had decided to hold an inquiry of the charges and an advocate was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner had filed CW No.3393/95.
6. On 24.04.1996, the CW was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the fact that the final order has been passed by the first respondent.
7. After the Inquiry the dismissal order was passed on 06.12.1995. An appeal was filed and that was also dismissed on 31.05.1996. The petitioner submitted that the allegations in the charge-sheet cannot be sustained. The petitioner has not get of any offence and no offence has been made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has urged that the Secretary (the 2nd respondent) who passed the order of dismissal participated in the proceedings of the Executive Committee (the Appellate Authority) and there-fore, the order of the Appellate Authority is vitiated on the ground of pious. The petitioner has stated that assuming everything to be correct the offence made out will come within a minor misconduct. Regarding the second charge the petitioner submitted that he basis on which the charge-sheet issued was not at all justified. The petitioner produced the medical certificate by a Government Doctor and that was accepted by the first respondent and leave was granted and that was not cancelled. According to the petitioner, there was no misconduct as mentioned in Rule 8.1.(b)(v) of the Service Rules much less a major misconduct.
8. The first respondent filed a counter stating that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, the writ petitioner does not disclose any irregularities or violation of any rights. The first respondent is not a State and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisidction. The first respondent stated that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1988 as Section Superintendent in routine manner and not on the basis of his work. The certificates of commendation produced by the petitioner are in the nature of routine certificates and they are irrelevant. The petitioner did not intimate about his writing examination. The fact that the petitioner was granted earned leave has admitted. The petitioner took leave on false pretence that he has to attend his ailing father in Kerala while he appeared in the examination during the period 14.5.1994 to 26.5.1994. He also taken the leave on a false pretence that the petitioner was suffering from jaundice and needed complete bed rest. The petitioner was aware of the schedule of examination even at the time of applying for leave on false pretence in his application for leave dated 13.5.1994. It was on the basis that he was suffering from jaundice and needed complete bed rest whereas he travelled and studied and appeared in MA examination at Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala). These things clearly show that the leave was obtained on false pretence and false medical and fitness certificates by the petitioner. The petitioner did not send the medical certificate along with the application for leave. The first respondent has stated that the appellate authority had considered the matter in accordance with law and the Secretary did not participated in the proceedings of the Executive Committee. It is stated in the counter that "even in the Chief Executive and Secretary offered to leave the venue, the petitioner asked him to continue since he had no ill-will against him. It seems that since the appeal of the petitioner was ultimately rejected, the petitioner has now ;chosen to make baseless allegations regarding the presence of the Secretary during the hearing of the appeal".
9. The first respondent has stated that the order of dismissal dated 06.12.1995 and the order of the appellate authority cannot be called in question by the petitioner.
10. Two things emerged out of the materials placed before court. The petitioner applied for leave and during the period of leave he wrote an examination for securing a post-graduate degree.
11. The first respondent had conducted inquiry and passed the order of dismissal. The petitioner claims himself to be a workman with the meaning of industrial dispute. The petitioner can raise all such disputes before the Industrial Dispute Tribunal. The questions raised by the petitioner are questions of fact are to be decided by industrial tribunal and the interpretation of the rules and regulation can be gone into by the Tribunal. Reserving the rights of the petitioner to take appropriate steps under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this writ petition is disissed. There shall be no order as to costs.