Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Badri Lal Teli vs Kvs on 19 September, 2022
(OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O.A.No.258/2022
and
O.A.No.264/2022
Reserved on:08.09.2022
Pronounced on:19.09.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
O.A.No.258/2022
Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri L.R.Sharma, aged about 44
years, R/o 16, C-Block, Mahesh Colony, Kayad Road, Ajmer,
Rajasthan-355023 presently posted as Post Graduate Teacher
(PGT) (Mathematics), in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, CRPF, GC
1, Ajmer (Raj.)-355007. Mobile No.9460553436, Group B.
Email [email protected]
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Vigyan Shah)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Joint Commissioner (Administrative/Personnel),
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area,
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (Regional Office), 92, Gandhi Nagar Marg,
Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302005.
4. Shri R.K.Meena, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre 1, Golf
Course Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305007.
...Respondents.
(By Advocates: Shri Hawa Singh)
(OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022)
(2)
O.A.No.264/2022
Badri Lal Teli S/o Shri Nakshtramal, aged about 42 years, R/o
V/117, Balmiki Yojana, Behind J.P.Nagar Police Chowki
Madar, Ajmer. Presently posted as PGT (History), Kendriya
Vidyalaya No.1, CRPF, Group Centre 1 Golf Course Road
Ajmer, Mobile No.9509994001, Group B.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri B.K.Jatti)
Versus
1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan through its
Commissioner, 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan (Regional Office), 92, Gandhi Nagar Marg,
Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302005.
3. Shri R.K.Meena, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1,
Central Reserve Police Force Group Centre 1, Golf
Course Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305007.
...Respondents.
(By Advocates: Shri Hawa Singh)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
Since there are similar facts and legal issues involved in the two cases listed above, these were heard together and are being disposed of with this common order. The main relief sought in both these cases is quashing of the orders dated 04.07.2022 and 05.07.2022, annexed as Annexures A/1 & A/2 in the respective OAs.
(OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (3)
2. In both OAs, the applicants have been placed under suspension; in exercise of powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, as extended to Kendriya Vidyalayas; on account of a disciplinary action pending/contemplated against them. It is also stated in these orders that the Headquarters of the applicants; who were posted as PGT (Mathematics) and PGT (History) respectively, in KV No.1, Ajmer; shall be at KV, Jalipa Cantt (Barmer) and Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jhalawar, respectively. The grounds for challenging the impugned orders, in the first OA (OA No.258/2022) are that the orders are driven by malafides on the part of the Respondent No.3. This respondent gave the applicant bad APARs, while the previous Principals had rated him higher. This respondent had alleged that the applicant (in OA No.258/2022) was behind a PIL filed before the Hon'ble High Court in a matter concerning cutting of trees in the school, which is cited as another instance of mala-fides. The applicant has also alleged that the suspension and change of Headquarters during suspension is in violation of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 2nd January 2014 and of the KVS transfer guidelines. Similar grounds are alleged by the applicant in the second OA (OA No.264/2022), besides stating that the action of the respondents is also in violation of the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 (as the action (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (4) has been allegedly taken because of the applicant's acts to uncover the corruption/illegal practices of the Principal(Respondent No.3). The applicants have also prayed for grant of interim relief by way of staying the impugned orders.
3. The respondents (official) have denied the claims made by the applicants. It is stated that the suspension is not a punishment and transfers are necessary incidence of any employment. The reply denies allegations of any malafides on the part of the Principal (Respondent No.4 in OA No.258/2022 and Respondent No.3 in OA No.264/2022). It is stated that the past performance of a person is no guarantee that it shall continue to be good for ever. The reply says that the academic scenario of the school was very poor both qualitatively and quantitatively and the discipline of the students was in a pathetic condition which made the Board examination results lowest (or second lowest) in all the Kendriya Vidyalayas of Rajasthan. The Principal (Respondent No.4 in OA No.258/2022 and Respondent No.3 in OA No.264/2022), on taking charge of the school found that one of the major reasons for poor discipline was the negative attitude and misconduct of the applicants, resulting in groupism and disruption in the school, inciting the students and the parents, by misleading them. The (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (5) applicants violated the instructions given by the Principal and did not follow his orders in a number of matters (detailed at length in the reply and not being reproduced here since, we are not, at present, going into details of the merits of the subject matter of the pending/contemplated inquiry). An affidavit has also been filed by the Respondent No.4 (in OA No.258/2022) and Respondent No.3 (in OA No.264/2022) denying the averments of mala-fides made against him.
4. Rejoinders have been filed in both the OAs denying the averments of the respondents, and reiterating the claims made in the O.A. The rejoinder filed by the applicant (in the second OA), enclosed copies of judgments in a number of cases [Omprakash vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (SB Civil Writ Petition No.328/2020), State of Rajasthan & Another vs. Omprakash (DB Spl. Appl. Writ No.517/2020), Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (SB Civil Writ Petition No.11900/2020 with connected cases), Panchu Ram Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition (S) No.2062/2016) and the Gujarat High Court in J.S. Solanki vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (1986) 1 GLR 41)]. These are in support of the applicant's contention that changing Headquarters during the period of suspension, by a Disciplinary Authority, without giving (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (6) reasons for such change in Headquarters is not legally sustainable.
5. Since the pleadings in both these matters are complete, it was finally heard on 08.09.2022. The learned counsel for the applicant in OA No.258/2022 (Shri Vigyan Shah) mainly stressed on the mala-fide nature of the impugned action. The affidavit by the Respondent No.3, in the PIL filed against cutting of trees, in which this respondent has implicated the applicant for having instigated filing the PIL against the school in collusion with his cousin, is a prima-facie proof of such malice. The learned counsel for the applicant in OA No.264/2022 mainly argued stressing the illegality involved in changing the Headquarters, citing the judgments, which are annexed with his rejoinder. The learned counsel for the respondents very forcefully argued against any intervention in a matter of disciplinary action at its initial stage where other remedies were available with the applicants against the orders of suspension. The change of Headquarters was necessitated because of the gross misconduct and indiscipline spread by the applicants in the school. The learned counsels (from both sides) also produced the following judgments in support of their respective claims:
(OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (7) On behalf of the applicant
i) Union of India and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (Civil Appeal No.9454 of 2013 decided on 22.11.2013)
ii) Ms. X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another [Writ Petition(Civil) No.1137 of 2018 decided o 10.02.2022]
iii) Ramjit Singh Kardam and Others vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Others [(2020) 20 SCC 209]
iv) Arvind Dattaraya Dhande vs. State of Maharashtra and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 169]
v) Vijender vs. State of Delhi [(1997) 6 SCC 171]
vi) Chandra Vilash Rai vs. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 11SCC 741] On behalf of the respondents
i) Rajneesh Khajuria vs. M/s Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8989 of 2019 decided on 15.01.2020)
ii) State of Madhya Pradesh & Another vs. Satya Narayan Dubey of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.447/2022 decided o 13.05.2022.
6. After going through the pleadings and hearing the arguments, we have no hesitation in concluding that, at this stage, the applicants have not been able to make out a case for our intervention in the orders regarding suspension. The official respondents have fully supported the action taken by the Principal (Respondent No.4 in OA 258/2022 and Respondent No.3 in OA No.264/2022). Even if there could be some suspicion, about bad inter-personal relationship between the Principal of the school and the teachers, it would be wrong to presume that the action taken by the (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (8) Deputy Commissioner (who is the Disciplinary Authority and against whom no malice is even alleged) is solely driven by ill-will of the Principal against these two applicants. The reply of the official respondents has given a large number of instances of alleged misconduct by the applicants and it would be wrong on our part to presume that all these averments are driven by the malice of the Principal. The learned counsels for the applicants objected to the learned counsel for the official respondents also appearing for the Private Respondent. However, they could not show us any law or practice or any precedent that expressly prohibits official counsel from representing a private respondent. If at all, it only shows that the official respondents are supporting (and not disowning) their employee against whom mala- fides have been alleged. We also do not find any violation of Rules in putting any employee under suspension, when a disciplinary action contemplating serious punitive action is being contemplated. There are remedies of appeal available under the CCS (CCA) Rules, and the applicants have obviously not exhausted them. We are, for these reasons, not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension passed in the two OAs.
7. This leaves us with the issue regarding change of Headquarters. Here, we must agree with the arguments of (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (9) the learned counsels of the applicants that such change of Headquarters, without mentioning any reasons in the order, is patently unjust. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicant (in OA No.264/2022), especially the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in J.S. Solanki vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (supra), leave us in no doubt that the impugned orders cannot be justified. The ratio of these judgments is very clear that the Headquarters of a suspended employee should not be changed in the normal circumstances. If there are any extra-ordinary reasons to change Headquarters, the reasons should be stated in the order. The courts can, then, see whether that power has been exercised judiciously and after application of mind. The impugned orders are totally silent about why the Headquarters have been changed, and why the applicants have been put in two remote corners of Rajasthan. Besides requiring spending of public money for their journeys from their respective new Headquarters to the place of inquiry, such a change would obviously make it difficult for the applicants to defend themselves, in an inquiry which would most likely be conducted at a third place. The change of Headquarters can be justified only when there is a fear about someone trying to bully or influence the witnesses or temper the evidence. In the absence of any of such reasons mentioned in the orders, we (OA No.258/2022 and .OA No.264/2022) (10) are unable to sustain the change of Headquarters mentioned in the impugned orders.
8. We, therefore, have no hesitation in quashing the concerned paragraph (shifting Headquarters) in the impugned orders at Annexure A/1 of the OAs and the subsequent orders (at Annexure A/2 of the OAs). The respondents would, however, be free to change the Headquarters, if there are sufficient reasons, by passing fresh orders giving those reasons. While passing any such orders, the respondents shall give due consideration to the charged employees' rights (and also balance of convenience) to adequately defend themselves. The OAs are, thus partially allowed. No costs.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/