Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

33. Pointing out to the statement of allegations and charge-sheet, she would submit that the charges are vague.

34. On Charge No.5 as regards financial misappropriation, she submits that Charge No.5 is extremely vague as it does not give details of the teacher in respect of whom wrong salary bills were submitted or the time period of the submission. She submits that similarly in respect of Charge No. 6 of use of abusive language there are no details about the teachers against whom abusive language was used. She would submit that similarly Charge No.7 as regards non updation of registers does not given any details of the period.

39. On Charge No.6 of using abusive language, she submits that the Management has relied upon 3 complaints by one teacher Radhana Singh however said Radhana Singh has not been examined. She would submit that though NC complaint and FIR was lodged, subsequently the Respondent No.4 has been acquitted on 1 st July 2017 as during evidence Radhana Singh had admitted that out of anger she had lodged report with Kurar police station. She would further point out that in the meeting held on 24 th August 2016, the Respondent No.4 Patil-SR (ch) 20 of 58 wp 12378-19.doc had asked for copy of the Compact Disk and as copy was not given, the Enquiry Committee had directed that there should not be cross- examination on the Compact Disk.

64. Perusal of the minutes of 24 th meeting would indicate that the Respondent No.4 had sought copy of the Compact Disk, however the same was not made available to the Respondent No 4 and the Enquiry Committee had directed no questions on the Compact Disk to be asked in the said meeting and to proceed further. Although the cross- 

Patil-SR (ch)                     35 of 58
                                                               wp 12378-19.doc

examination on the Compact Disk was deferred by the Enquiry Committee, the Enquiry Committee has thereafter relied upon the Compact Disk to come to a finding that the charge of use of abusive language by the Respondent No.4 is proved. The relevancy of the documents not having been disputed, there was clear non compliance of Rule 37 of MEPS Rules.

c) Respondent No.4 has produced on record the judgment of acquittal dated 1st July 2017.

d) The transcript of Compact Disk placed on record was not supplied to the Respondent No.4 nor the same has been placed before the Tribunal.

e) Although charge is that abusive language was used against employees including the female employees, complaint is made by only one employee - Radhana Singh.

G] On Charge No.7 :Non updation of Registers :-