Gujarat High Court
Francis Dominic Amaodia vs The Manager/Managing Trustee on 18 June, 2018
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20998 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
FRANCIS DOMINIC AMAODIA
Versus
THE MANAGER/MANAGING TRUSTEE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.AMIT R JOSHI(6682) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS RITU GURU AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
MS LAXMI C NAINANI(2275) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 18/06/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal passed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of inquiry proceedings and also challenged the order dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT Gujarat Secondary Educational Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application No.343 of 2001 rejecting the said application of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 25.6.1987 in Respondent No.2-School. The school was receiving grant in-aid from the State Government. Though the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1987, he was never considered for promotion and therefore, he filed an application bearing Application No.118 of 1992 before Gujarat Secondary Educational Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the application by issuing directions to School-Management and Respondent No.1-Trust to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for promotion. It is grievance of the petitioner that instead of considering the case of the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 kept a grudge against the petitioner and appointed some other person on the said post rather than appointing the petitioner. It is grievance of the petitioner that the arrogant School- Management could not digest the fact that a junior peon has approached the Tribunal for promotion against the mighty School-Management. After filing of such proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the School- Management and the school started allotting their personal work after his duty hours.
3. On 30th November, 2000, the petitioner received a charge-sheet raising various charges by the respondent- Trust. Petitioner denied all the allegations and charges leveled against him. However, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT already decided to hold disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner which was against the law. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to appoint his advocate to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The issue raised by the petitioner were not even explained nor decided by the Inquiry Officer and without assigning any reasons, the inquiry was decided against the petitioner and ultimately, respondent No.1-Trust passed an order of termination dated 31.8.2001, terminating the services of the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, petitioner filed Application No.343 of 2001 before the learned Tribunal in September, 2001 and ultimately, on 14.7.2006, learned Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner. The impugned order of the Tribunal has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the present petition.
5. Notice has been served upon the respondents but no separate reply has been filed. Even nobody put in appearance on behalf of the respondents when this matter is taken up.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents were biased against the petitioner as the petitioner has approached the Tribunal on earlier occasions for his next promotion from the post of Peon. It has been submitted that the petitioner was duly qualified to have been appointed as a Clerk in the respondent establishment. However, he has been denied the Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT same. It has been argued that the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension which has resulted into financial hardships. Petitioner was not in a position to pay the rent of the premises where he was residing and ultimately, he along with members of the family of the petitioner were removed from the accommodation which has adversely affected his persuasion of the inquiry proceedings. It has also argued that the respondents have not informed the District Education Officer before terminating the services of the petitioner. All the aforementioned circumstances call for interference by this Court which have been ignored by the Tribunal at the time of arguments.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel has not highlighted the circumstances which resulted into a situation as a result of which services of the petitioner has been terminated.
8. Some of the events have been reproduced in para No.7 of the order passed by the Tribunal. It has been highlighted that on 30.3.2001, the School-Management filed a criminal compliant against the applicant alleging that on 29.3.2000, the applicant attempted to assault the lady Head Mistress and other staff members with dhariya, upon asking his explanation for taking out more cyclo- styled copies of the question papers. The applicant seems to have changed his residence during this time and changed address was not informed to the Institution. The Management has taken a decision to take disciplinary Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT action against the petitioner. A show cause notice dated 13.4.2000 and the suspension order dated 1.4.2000 appears to have been sent to the petitioner by RPAD in three different covers. Covers were received back as returned to the sender with the endorsement of refusal to accept the same. These covers were brought on record in the cross examination of the applicant. It appears that thereafter, applicant filed Appeal No.56 of 2001 before the Tribunal for subsistence allowance. It is at that stage, the real address of the applicant came to the knowledge of the Management. Thereafter, Management sent the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2000 along with letter dated 22.1.2001. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 25.1.2001. The School-Management has appointed one Mr.T.H.Gandhi as Inquiry Officer who has conducted the inquiry proceedings against the applicant. Four meetings of the inquiry committee were held. Though in the plaint and his chief, he has stated that he was not having intimation about the meetings etc., however, he has attended three out of four meetings.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain the change of address by referring to the non payment of subsistence allowance and by referring to communication having been addressed. I have gone through this communication. This seems to have been written after consultation with the lawyer and that effort to cover up lacuna in the case of the petitioner.
10. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has copied more number of question papers Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/20998/2006 JUDGMENT than he was required to do. On asking by the Head Mistress, he has tried to attack to Head Mistress with sharp edge weapon. The school where the petitioner was employed was a girls school and was being run by female staff and Head Mistress. The acts and omissions of the petitioner cannot be taken lightly or being ignored.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance during the suspension period which still remains with the respondents.
12. In view of the afore-going discussion, this Court do not call for any interference in the decision of the Tribunal as far as termination of the petitioner is concerned. However, respondents will pay the entire subsistence allowance to the petitioner till the date of termination. The petitioner will also be paid any other dues which are still with the School-Management. The petitioner shall be further entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date such arrears fell due till their actual payment. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(MOHINDER PAL, J) (ashish) Page 6 of 6