Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Article-II The second charge is use of unparliamentry and abusive language by the Charged Officer towards Principal, Teachers and Visitors.

The prosecution had submitted statements of seven staff members and a joint statement of staff members and seven witnesses. The statement of Smt. S.P.Advani, Ex-PET could not be verified as the Principal, K.V, Arjangarh informed that she had expired after her retirement on superannuation.

The Presenting Officer in his written brief has stated that the Ex-Principal Shri K.C.Sharma, who had now retired from service has given his statement as per PW-1, which has been recorded on daily proceedings sheet page-1 to 10. He clearly stated in his deposition & recorded that she had definitely used foul language against him. He had also stated that she used foul ad abusive language when the teachers were going to the office to deposit fees or for any other official work in the Office. This abusive languages was also used with the parents in the Office. With him she has used abusive language ones or twice. But in this case the second witness PW-2 Smt. Veena Rani, PRT verified her statements and stated during the cross examination that whatever she had written in para-3 of her complaint is correct. She had used unparliamentry language against her. The third witness Smt. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, PW-3 also verified her statement and stated that she had written in Hindi ______________________________ The fourth prosecution witness Smt. Nisha Peer, PRT also verified her statement and stated during cross that it is true that Smt. Rita Dutta without any reason misbehaved. She had clearly stated that she was walking in corridor in old campus in front of Principal Room on 10.08.2007 and used unparliamentry language. The fifth prosecution witness Smt. Parveen Virk also verified her statement dated 10.08.07 and joint statement dated 10.08.07 and also gave the reply of cross made by D.A., she stand at her statements. The sixth prosecution witness Shri Desh Raj, LDC and Seventh Shri Ram Bhagat also verified their statements and also joint Statements and stand by the same. They have given the true picture of episode held on 10.08.07 in the cross.

The prosecution to substantiate the charge has relied on the statement of Shri K.C.Sharma, Ex Principal, as per PW-1, which has been recorded on daily proceedings sheet page-1 to 10. He had also stated that she used foul and abusive language against him. Regarding use of unparliamentry and abusive language towards teachers, the SE-11 and PW-1 to 7, and on joint statement dated 10-08-2007, by staff members, SE-12. All seven witnesses produced by the prosecution have verified their statements and joint statement and had during their witnesses stated that Mrs. Rita Dutta was walking in the corridor of old campus in front of Principals Room on 10-08-2007 and used unparliamentry language. The CO has also accepted to some alteration with prosecution witness but does not accept the charge of using unparliamentry language against any of them.

No organization can function efficiently, if it tolerates employees who indulge in use of abusive language towards her superiors, colleagues and visitors etc. The Apex Court has held in Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N.B. Narawade [(2005), 3 SCC 134] that dismissal of a workman for use of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate. In the instant cases, the charge against Smt. Rita Dutta go well beyond this. On perusal of the material evidences on records, facts of the case and submissions made by the Charged Officer in her representation dated 31.10.2011 the undersigned came to a conclusion that the charge leveled at Article-I & II have been convincingly proved and Charged Officer has not brought forward any new material evidences to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority which may negate the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

15. The second charge against the Applicant was that she was in the habit of using unparliamentry and abusive language towards Teachers, Principals & visitors. She used unparliamentry language against Smt. Veena Rani, PRT on 03.05.2007 and Smt. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, TGT (Hindi) on 17.05.2007. Further, she has also used abusive language against the Principal on 16.06.2007 in the presence of parents and staff. Accordingly, a memo was given to her but she threw it away. The Principal informed the Assistant Commissioner about those incidents vide his letter dated 21.06.2007. Again, she failed to maintain decorum and used unparliamentry language on 10.08.2007 while Shri Sanjay Kumar, AAO was conducting the fact finding enquiry. The shouting incident occurred on 10.08.2008 was also reported by a team of teaching and non teaching staff consisting of Smt. Veena Rani, PRT, Smt. Nisha Peer, PRT, Smt. Parveen, PRT, Smt. Pallavi Singh, Computer Instructor, Shri Desh Raj, LDC and Shri Ram Bhagat, Group D. The Enquiry Officer in his report recorded the finding that the aforesaid charge has been conclusively proved. It is seen that with the Memorandum dated 12.05.2009 proposing to hold enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority furnished lists of eleven documents and seven witnesses to prove them. Under sub-rule (6) of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules, the Disciplinary Authority has also forwarded the requisite documents to Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the enquiry was required to be held under sub-rules (14) and (15) of the aforesaid Rule. Under the said Rules, the Inquiring Authority is prohibited from permitting any new evidence except when there was any inherent lacunae or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally. The said rules are reproduced as under:-