Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satgur Dass, Ex-S.S. Master vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 10 July, 1995
Equivalent citations: (1996)112PLR131
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner who was recruited as a J.B.T. teacher on July 16, 1959 was ordered to be removed from service on April 23,1991. His appeal against this order having been rejected by the Govt. vide order dated January 29, 1992, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner impugns the order of removal from service as being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.
2. The respondents controvert the petitioner's stand primarily on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed in strict conformity with the rules. According to the respondents, the charges levelled against the petitioner were duly proved in the departmental enquiry. A show cause notice was given to him. After consideration of his reply, the Director, School Education ordered his removal from service. The matter was reconsidered by the appellate authority, who found no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. H.S. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the punishing authority is not a speaking order. Even the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained as it has taken into consideration various matters which were beyond the charges levelled against the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the claim made on behalf of the petitioner.
4. A perusal of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner vide letter dated April 23, 1986 shows that seven allegations had been levelled against him. Broadly, it was alleged that he had committed certain financial irregularities and was absent from the school on certain days. The Enquiry Officer did not record a positive finding that charges were proved against the petitioner. In fact, it was only held that the petitioner had committed "an irregularity". In fact, with regard to charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, it was held that the petitioner had committed only an irregularity. With regard to charges Nos. 5 and 7, it was held that the allegations did not relate to the petitioner. With regard to charge No. 6 it was observed that the petitioner had redeposited the amount of Rs. 3039.85 paise in different funds. In spite of this, the Director proceeded to order the removal of the petitioner from service on the assumption that "charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stood proved against Shri Satguru Dass." He accordingly ordered his removal from service. The appellate authority after examination of the matter has concluded as under: -
"For the reasons stated above, charges Nos. 1, 2, 3 are not such on the basis of which Shri Satguru is removed from service. However, charge No. 3 is very serious and he misused his position and by taking out money from various . funds purchased material against the rules and thus there is doubt about his honesty. Therefore, I reject the appeal of Shri Sat Guru Dass. A copy of this order be sent to Shri Satguru Dass."
With regard to charge No. 6, it has been found by the appellate authority that it is "not very serious - ". The charge No. 3 as levelled against the petitioner is as under: -
"He by not caring for the approved sources, purchased material of approximately Rs. 26059.16 from various funds and this material was not purchased from approved sources. By doing so, as per Rule 18 of the Students Rules 1972, he did not take the approval of the competent officer and also ignored Appendix 14 and 17 PFR Volume I Part-II and directions given therein."
5. A perusal of the charge would show that the primary allegation against the petitioner was that he had not taken the approval of the competent officer before making the purchases and that the material was not purchased from the approved sources. The proceedings as recorded by the Enquiry Officer disclose that the petitioner who was merely acting as a Headmaster on account of the fact that the actual incumbent of the office had been suspended, had "called a meeting of the teachers and the requirements of goods for the school were discussed - ". Furthermore. "all the teachers stated their requirements and after passing a resolution signatures were put-----goods were purchased by ordering the purchases at the lowest rates (after) inviting tenders. The entries of the goods in the stock register have been made by Sh. Satguru Dass himself. "In her comments with regards to this charge, the Enquiry Office - has observed as under:-
"The purchases of Rs. 26059.16 paise by Shri Satguru Dass were not made from approved sources. Purchases were made on the basis of quotations. Purchasing of goods out of the funds is not a legitimate charge and it is an irregularity."
On a perusal of the above, it is clear that even according to the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had invited tenders and made purchases at the lowest rates. Still further, the entries in the stock register were duly made. It has not been found that the approval of the competent authority, if any, had not been obtained. Still further, there is no charge of misuse of funds. No dishonest motive was attributed to the petitioner. There was no evidence of any personal gain having been made by the petitioner. In spite of this, the appellate authority has observed that the charges was very serious and that "there is doubt about his honesty". In the absence of a specific allegation to that effect, the appellate authority could not have recorded a finding that there was a doubt about the petitioner's honesty.
6. Mr. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner was actually working as a Social Studies Master since July 7, 1971. As a teacher, he was not familiar with the rule and procedure for purchase of various articles for use in the school. It was only in January 1984 that the petitioner who was the senior-most Master in the school, was allowed to act as a Headmaster and he exercised the powers of a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. On account of his being unfamiliar with the procedure for purchase of goods, a bonafide irregularity may have been committed. However, there was no dishonest motive and the order of removal in such a situation cannot be sustained. Learned counsel appears to be right. That is even the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In view of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer with which the respondents have not disagreed, it cannot be said that the charges were held to have been proved. Even the appellate authority has found that except charge No. 3, the other charges did not call for the petitioner's removal from service. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned, the appellate authority has surely erred in holding that the goods were not purchased from the approved sources or that the petitioner had not joined any teachers at the time of purchase. Once the quotations had been invited and the goods were purchased at the lowest rates after a resolution had been passed by all the teachers, it cannot be said that the other teachers had not been associated. Still further, it has not been shown as to which was the approved source. None has been specified in the charge-sheet or disclosed by the Enquiry Officer. Even at the hearing today, it has not been shown as to how the petitioner had failed to get the approval from the competent authority. Who was the competent authority? Which was the approved source. None has been disclosed. The charge was vague. The enquiry Officer did not record a positive finding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. Yet the petitioners removal from service has been ordered with a finding that there is a doubt about the petitioner's honestly. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, the orders cannot be sustained as the removal is based on a consideration beyond the charges.
7. Mr. Mann has also raised certain other contentions. He has contended that complete copy of enquiry report had not been supplied to him. It has been pointed out that not only the enquiry report was illegible but even certain pages were missing. On this basis, it has been contended that the petitioner had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity. In view of my finding that the impugned orders were passed on a wrong assumption, it is not necessary to go into this contention.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated April 23, 1991 and January 29, 1992 by which the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service and his appeal was dismissed are set aside. The petitioner is due to retire on October 31,1995. The consequential reliefs should be given to him as early as possible, preferably before his retirement. In the circumstances of the case, I made no order as to costs.