Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 14th February 2020
D. Ganesan v. The Chairman/Special Officer, The Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic (W.P. No. 37265 of 2004)
Facts
The Petitioner was working as the Principal of Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Polytechnic and he was placed under suspension by the 1st respondent on the ground that enquiry against him was pending under s.4 of the Special by-laws. The Petitioner had indulged in homosexual activities with the polytechnic students, had made derogatory remarks, wrote in filthy language against the teaching staff in the notice board and had allowed the students to read the same and was also held responsible for misappropriation of funds. Out of 9 charges, 7 charges had been proved against him. Consequently, the inquiry report was examined and show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, proposing the punishment of dismissal. Since the reply submitted by the Petitioner was not satisfactory, a personal hearing was conducted giving him an opportunity to defend himself from the charges. Subsequently not satisfied with the explanation given by the Petitioner, he was dismissed from service by the 1st respondent.
Thereafter, the Petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority challenging his dismissal and the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of dismissal.
The Petitioner filed a writ petition before the HC praying for quashing of these orders and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages.
Appellant’s contention
The Petitioner contended that the 1st respondent was not the appropriate authority to terminate the Petitioner and that the subsistence allowance was not paid to him during the period of suspension.
Respondent’s contention
In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, they have stated that the Petitioner was sanctioned subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of his salary after 90 days. Though the Petitioner was given sufficient time to submit his explanation, he did not submit his explanation and was dragging the issue, which resulted in prolonging the matter. Hence, the subsistence allowance was reduced to 50% of his salary. Thereafter, the subsistence allowance was stopped following the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
Held
With regard to jurisdiction, the Court held that since the Petitioner was appointed by the Chairman of the Polytechnic, the order of termination passed by him (who is the appointing authority) was proper. The Court opined that considering the grave nature of charges proved against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was unfit to continue as the Principal of the Polytechnic Institute. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors. [1997 (2) SCC 534] wherein the Court dealt with a similar matter. The Court observed that the provisions of C.C.S. (C.C.O.) Rules, 1965 of the Government of India (GOI) would be applicable to the employees of Navodaya Vidyalaya. With a view to prevent unnecessary exposure to an enquiry in relation to a conduct of a teacher resulting in sexual harassment of the girl student involving misconduct, a resolution prescribing special summary procedure was published, with the Minister of HRD, GOI as its Chairman. The notification proposes to dispense with regular enquiry under the Rules. In the case of a temporary employee whose integrity and conduct is doubtful but difficult to prove with sufficient documentary evidence to establish the charge and whose retention in service would be prejudicial to the interest of the institution or is likely to harm the reputation of the institution, the appointing authority may terminate his service. The order of termination may not provide any reasons but the same shall be recorded in the file.
The HC confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority.
Leave a Reply