Lal Singh Dhaliwal v. Managing Committee, Guru Nanak

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.H.S. Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who was working as Headmaster in Guru Nanak Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh, has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated

12.11.2003 (Annexure P1) passed by the Managing Committee of the said school, dismissing him from service for the alleged misconduct after holding a regular enquiry against him; as well as the order dated 19.3.2004 (Annexure P2), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the impugned orders after a considerable delay of more than four years. In the writ petition, no reasonable explanation has been given for the said delay. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through C.W.P. No.8392 of 2009 -2- the impugned orders, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition at this belated stage as in my opinion even on merits the petitioner has no case. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the penalty of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner after following due procedure as provided under Rules 3 to 6 of Chandigarh Aided School (Security & Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as `the Service Rules').

A charge-sheet was issued in which seven charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges to be incorrect, false and baseless. After considering his reply, the Managing Committee found the same as unsatisfactory and thereafter regular enquiry was ordered to be initiated and Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in the said enquiry. On the basis of the material came in evidence, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and submitted his report. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with the proposal of punishment. The reply submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Managing Committee and the same was found to be unsatisfactory and untenable to disprove or rebut the charges proved against him in the enquiry. Thereafter, the Managing Committee sought approval from the appropriate authority under the Service Rules for imposing major penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner, which was granted vide order dated 9.10.2003. ]After the approval, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any procedural irregularity in the conduct of enquiry or perversity in the finding recorded which has resulted into any prejudice to the petitioner. Due procedure as laid down unde the provisions of the C.W.P. No.8392 of 2009 -3- Service Rules has been completely followed and on the basis of proved charges, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The Appellate Authority after considering each and every submission made by the petitioner, has affirmed the order of penalty. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. May 28, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE