High Court · 2015

We have heard Ms. R.Devi, learned counsel for the appellant. Als o heard Mr B.Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent. The appellant herein was the Headmaster of the Jirson High Schoo l which was not a provincialised School at the time relevant. On 20.10.2009, the appellant was served with a notice to show cause in respect of a complaint whic h had been received by the Managing Committee of the School aforesaid from some students and parents. In the complaint aforesaid, the allegations of misappropri ation of fund, molestation and sexual abuse of the girls were made against the a ppellant . By the said letter, the appellant was also directed to submit reply to the show cause notice within 72 hours from the receipt of such notice. It was contended that though the appellant received the notice but he did not give any reply thereto within the time fixed. In such a situation , the Managing Committee resolved to dismiss the appellant from the post of Head mastership with immediate effect. In terms of the resolution, so adopted, the l etter dated 30.10.2009 convening the termination of the appellant from service w as issued by the respondent No.6. Alleging such dismissal as illegal, the appellant, as petitioner, had preferred WP(C) No. 2910/2011 seeking quashment of the letter dated 30.10.2009 as well as the resolution on the basis of which the letter dated 30.10.2009 was issued by t he respondent No.6 . It has been alleged that before dismissing the appellant fr om service, the disciplinary authority did not conduct an inquiry as required un der the relevant rules and procedures. His further case was that the charges on the basis of which appellant w as terminated from service were fabricated ones and such charges were leveled a gainst him to get him out of the job in order to accommodate the respondent No .8 herein against the post so fell vacant on his ouster. His further case was th at the authority which terminated him from service did not have authority to do so. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Jud ge found that the appellant was charged with serious miscount, like misappropr iation of fund, molestation and sexual assault on the girl students. However, wh en the appellant was asked to show cause against the allegations against him, he chose not to participate in such a proceeding and allowed the proceeding to run ex-parte which ultimately ended up with adoption of a resolution recommending h is dismissal from service. The learned Single also held that since the school aforesaid was not a provincialised school, under the relevant rules, the Managing Committee of the S chool is the sole authority in so far service conditions etc of the appellant ar e concerned. Being so, the Managing Committee of the school is also not required to follow the prescriptions which are applicable to employees of provincialised school in so far disciplinary proceeding is concerned. The learned Single also found that the appellant filed a r epresentation to the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao, Haflong instead of replyi ng to the show cause notice served on him by the Managing Committee of the schoo l. Pursuant thereto, the Inspector of Schools ordered an enquiry into the alleg ations against the appellant. Such an inquiry, however, did not exonerate the appellant but since he had also been punished in a customary way, his termination order held to be bad in law. On the conspectus of aforesaid facts, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss WP(C) No. 2910/2011 by the order dated 02.11.2011 which is questioned in this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant who repeated t he argument, advanced before the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, learne d counsel for the respondent submits that since the school aforesaid is not a p rovincialised school , as such, the procedures which govern the provincialised s chool have no application in so far disciplinary proceeding against the teachers and employees working in non-provincialised schools is concerned. It has also been contended that in order to satisfy the principl es of natural justice, the appellant was given an opportunity to show cause agai nst allegations made against him. However, instead of availing of such opportuni ty, he allowed the proceeding to run ex-parte resulting in adoption of resolutio n recommending his termination from service which was given effect to vide lette r dated 30.10.2009. Only thereafter, he rushed to the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao. Halflon g and filed a representation seeking setting aside of termination order although such an authority had no jurisdiction to entertain such a representation. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that on such approach, the Inspector of Schools, Dima Hasao Haflong ordered an inquiry. Such inquiry, howev er, did not exonerate the appellant from the allegations leveled against him. The further case of respondents was that due to alleged illegal conduct on the p art of the appellant, a criminal case was filed. Such criminal case was, however , dropped since a compromise was affected between the parties under which the ap pellant was to pay some penalty in accordance with tribal customs. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, th e learned Single had rightly dismissed the proceeding so initiated by the appell ant seeking relief as aforesaid. He, therefore, urges this Court to dismiss the present appeal. We have considered the rival submissions having regard to the materials on record including judgment under challenge as well as enquiry report and found that the appellant herein was given due opportunity to reply the allegations ag ainst him. However, he did not participate in such proceeding and allowed the sa me to run ex-parte leading to adoption of resolution against him which was ultim ately given effect to by order dated 30.10.2009. We have also found that instead of appearing before the rightful authority, the appellant ran to the Inspector of Schools Dima Hasao, Halflong which had, howeve r, no jurisdiction over such matter. But then such an authority too ordered an i nquiry and more importantly, even such an enquiry did not exonerate him. For rea dy reference the relevant part of the inquiry is reproduced below:- (cid:28) On 21 January in response to the order issued by the Inspector of Schools, N.C District Circle, Haflong both the enquiry officers have visited Ji rsong High School spot in details and to submit the same findings in the office of the Inspector of Schools, N.C District Circle, Haflong. Accordingly the details enquiry reports is prepared and collected as under:- -------- 1) ------- 2) --------- 3) --------- 4) --------- 5) 6) Compromise letter signed by both parties in the office of the Officer-in -charge (O.C.) Umrangso Police Station dated 25/10/2009. The first parties were (1) Smt. V.Milikpi (ii) Smt P.Sanghangpi and others. The second parties were (1) Sri Dehiram Borah (ii) Sri Prakash Singh and others. Conclusion: -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Moreover, Sri Borah had also confessed that he had committed the crime to his ow n students (Karbi girl students), but it was a false confession to save his life , he said. In his statement in front of the police I.C., he said that though he did not commit the crime, he was force to confess in presence of the K.S.A and o ther S.M.C members otherwise he Sri D.Borah) might be tortured or beaten to deat h. If he (Sri Borah) as he was lonely and defend less on the day of meeting held in the school compound. The K.S.A. and Karbi community people may be in aggres sive mood of revenge for nothing crime but to spot his image. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- It is needless to mention that as per law of the land- 1) Double punishm ent cannot be given to any culprit or accused. Fine as well hanging to death is beyond the prevailing law of land. 2) Once it was compromise in presence of O.C. Umrangtso Police Station it should not/cannot be proceed to any other authority . 3) Since police is the department/authority for law and order to arrest any cr iminal or murderer and to hand over the accused person to the higher concerned a uthority in order to punish the culprit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- On the conspectus of above discussion, we have found that the ap pellant was given opportunity to dispute the allegations against him and such op portunity was given in a proceeding initiated by an authority having jurisdictio n over the matter. However, the appellant did not avail of such opportunity. Bei ng so, it cannot be said that the appellant was terminated from service without giving an opportunity of being heard. These apart, even the enquiry, conducted under the direction of the Inspector of Schools Dima Hasao, Halflong on being required by the appellant, d id not exonerate the appellant of the allegations leveled against him. Thus, we conclude that learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the proceeding initiated by the appellant, more so, when there are materials on record to show that the appellant, being a teacher, is guilty of misconduct of enormous nature . the order under challenge. This writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Situation being such, we have found no reason to interfere with