Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Deepa Dubey vs Union Of India on 3 March, 2011
W.A.No.1017/2010
Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
03.03.2011.
Shri A.P.Singh, counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Kanak Gaharwar, counsel for respondents.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 6.9.2010 in W.P.No.7403/2010(S) by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 29.4.2010 and 2.6.2010 for convening proceedings under Article 171(B) of the Army Welfare Education Society Rules and Regulations for departmental inquiry.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that in Writ Appeal No.380/2010, a Division Bench of this Court on 24.6.2010 has decided the matter. The Division Bench has permitted respondents to continue with the Departmental Inquiry and the appellant has been permitted to raise all contentions before the Inquiry Officer. So filing of writ petition and this appeal are futile and the respondents may be permitted to continue with the departmental proceedings as directed by an order dated 24.6.2010 in W.A.No.380/2010.
Shri A.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that all the charges are in respect of filing of a false complaint by the appellant before the Women Commission. During the pendency of this writ appeal, the Women Commission has already submitted its report which is in favour of the appellant and the complaint made by the appellant has been found to be correct. It is submitted that for this purpose, the appellant has moved an application before this Court for seeking directions.
To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the factual position in the case is stated.
The appellant is a teacher engaged in Army School No.1, Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur. She was placed under suspension by an order dated 19.3.2010 in contemplation of a W.A.No.1017/2010 Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
departmental inquiry. Later, on 26..3.2010, the appellant was served with a charge-sheet Annexure P/4 with covering letter Annexure P/3. The appellant was charged with the allegations of violating the provisions of Rule 82 (c) (vii), (d) (I) and 83(d) (vii) of Red Book- AWES Volume-1 (Rules and Regulations for Army School/Army Public School-Silver Jubilee Ed. (1983-2008).For ready reference, the charges leveled against the appellant are reproduced as under:
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SMT. DEEPA DUBEY, PRT, ARMY SCHOOL NO.1 GRC, JABALPUR.ARTICLE OF CHARGE I That Smt. Deepa Dubey while working as Primary Teacher at Army School No.1, Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur leveled false allegations and accusations against the Principal, Army School No.1. The Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur to the Rajya Mahila Ayog on 31st October, 2009 and had the same published in the Local News Papers on the 1st and 2nd February, 2010 I.e. Hari Bhumi and Jai Lok.
By her aforesaid act Smt. Deepa Dubey, Primary Teacher, GRC, Jabalpur has behaved in a manner unbecoming of an employee and has thus violated the provisions of Article 82(c)(iv) and (vii) of RED BOOk- AWES Volume-I (Rules and Regulations for Army School/Army Public School- Silver Jubilee Edition (1983-2008) ARTICLE OF CHARGE II That, Smt. Deepa Dubey while working as PRT Army School No.1, The Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur either personally or instrumentally leveled false allegations and accusations against the Principal published in the local news papers on the Ist and 2nd February, 2010.
By her aforesaid act Smt. Deep Dubey has behaved in a manner unbecoming of an employee and thus violated the provision of Rule 82(c) (vii) (d) (I) and 82(d) (vii) of RED BOOK-AWES Volume-I (Rules and Regulations for Army School/Army Public School- Silver Jubilee Edition (1983-2008).
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III
W.A.No.1017/2010
Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
That Smt. Deepa Dubey, while working as
Primary Teacher, Army School No.1, GRC, Jabalpur failed to abide by the Rules and Regulations of the School and to show due respect to the constituted authority I.e. the Principal and the Chairman and approached the Rajya Mahila Aayog on 31st October, 2009.
By her aforesaid act has behaved in a manner unbecoming of an employee and thus violated the provision of Rule 179 (a) and (g) of RED BOOK-AWES Volume I (Rules and Regulations for Army School/Army Public school)- Silver Jubilee Edition (1983-2008) ARTICLE OF CHARGE-IV That, the said Smt. Deepa Dubey while working as Primary Teacher, Army School No.1, The Grenadiers Regimental Centre, Jabalpur on the Ist of February, 2010 during working hours at 12.00 noon exhibited disorderly behaviour by entering the School premises with unauthorized personnel and other members without valid permission.
The aforesaid act on the part of Smt. Deepa Dubey amounts to violation of Article 179(h) of RED BOOK- AWES Volume-I (Rules and Regulations for Army School/Army Public School- Silver Jubilee Edition (1983-2008)"
The contention of the appellant before this Court is that the Women Commission to whom the complaint was lodged by the appellant has recorded a finding in favour of the appellant. So the charges leveled against the appellant may be quashed.
Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate if order dated 24.6.2010 in Writ Appeal No.380/2010 is referred. In the aforesaid writ appeal, the appellant herein had challenged her suspension order and also issuance of charge-sheet. The Division Bench considering the contentions raised by the parties held thus:
This intra-court appeal arises out of order dated 19.4.2010 passed in W.P.No.4836/2009 by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.W.A.No.1017/2010
Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
The appellant is a teacher working in Army School No.1, GRC, Jabalpur. The appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.3.2003. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued to her on 31.3.2010. The appellant challenged the validity order of suspension as well as action of respondents in issuing charge sheet to her in the aforementioned writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.4.2010 held that scope of interference with the order of suspension is limited to the cases of lack of jurisdiction, mala fide or perversity. It was found that no case for interference against the order of suspension was made out by the appellant. Learned Single Judge further held that the question whether charges are malicious, baseless or vindictive cannot be decided at the stage of issuance of order of suspension and it is always advisable to allow the disciplinary proceedings to go on.
Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that order of suspension as well as charge sheet has been issued with a mala fide intention because appellant had made a complaint against respondent no.4. It was further argued that there are serious procedural lapses in the initiation of departmental enquiry inasmuch as the procedure prescribed for initiation of departmental enquiry as contained in guidelines of disciplinary action against the employees in Army School, has not been followed. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Clause 13(b) (I) of the Guidelines and has submitted that charge-sheet as well as convening order were prepared and served on the appellant on the same day, I.e. 26.3.2010 whereas under the procedure which has been prescribed in the Guidelines, there should have been at least a gap of two weeks to enable the delinquent employee to submit reply to the charge-sheet.
We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is well settled in law that ordinarily no writ lies against the charge sheet and neither correctness of charges can be examined in the writ petition nor the Court sits as disciplinary authority. [See: Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayanana, (2006) 12 SCC 28).
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to order of suspension can also not be accepted, as an employee facing departmental enquiry or even in contemplation of a departmental W.A.No.1017/2010 Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
proceeding can be placed under suspension. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Admittedly, the departmental proceeding has already been commenced and is likely to be concluded and, thus, the contention that the very initiation of the departmental enquiry is not in accordance with law, can be raised and tested only after its culmination.
It is needless to emphasize, that after conclusion of the departmental proceedings and the order of the disciplinary authority, if the appellant is aggrieved, she can challenge the same before the appropriate legal forum raising all contentions regarding the alleged procedural lapses in the initiation of the departmental proceeding, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of."
From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the same charges sheet was under challenge in the earlier round of litigation and the Division Bench considering all the contentions and relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) held that all the contentions can be raised in the departmental proceedings and after culmination of the departmental proceeding, the appellant can raise all her grievance before the appropriate forum and on the aforesaid grounds, the Division Bench refused to interfere in the departmental proceedings. As the similar contentions were raised in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.380/2010, at this stage, we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the appellant that on the basis of the report of Women Commission, this writ appeal can be allowed and the charges can be quashed. Appellant if advised so may place the aforesaid report in the departmental proceedings and may insist that her complaint was found correct by the aforesaid commission which is a statutory in nature and she may be discharged from all the charges. However, all these contentions will be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law and if the appellant feels aggrieved by the W.A.No.1017/2010 Mrs. Deepa Dubey Union of India and Ors.
decision, the appellant may agitate all her contentions before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, this Writ appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his contention before the writ court was also that there were some discrepancies in the departmental proceedings and the appellant was not given due opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. These contentions at this juncture cannot be examined. The appellant, if advised so, may raise all these contentions after culmination of the departmental proceedings as directed in W.P.No.380/2010.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.S.Shrivastava)
Judge Judge
JLL