LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, August 23, 2012

“In the result I allow the writ petition, quash the order of dismissal dated February 11, 1988 and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal. Needless to say it would be open to the respondents, if so advised, to proceed against the petitioner afresh as per the Rules of the Education Code.” It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor it was argued before us that during the pendency of the enquiry, the appellant was kept under suspension and he was paid subsistence allowance. This being the position, there could be no justification to deny full salary to the appellant for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to pay full salary and allowances to the appellant for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005. The needful be done within a period of two months from today by getting prepared a demand draft in the appellant’s name, which shall be delivered at his residential address on or before the end of two months period.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5372 OF 2012
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23219 of 2010)

R.S. Misra                                               … Appellant
                                   Versus

Union of India and others                                     … Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.

1.    This appeal is directed against order dated  5.2.2010  passed  by  the
Division Bench of the Delhi  High  Court  whereby  the  civil  miscellaneous
application filed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.3902/2008  for  issue
of a direction to the respondents to pay him salary for the  period  between
5.11.2003 and 24.1.2006 was dismissed.

2.    While he was holding the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry)  in
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short, ‘KVS’),  the  appellant’s  services
were terminated by the  Commissioner,  KVS  under  Article  81  (b)  of  the
Education Code.  CWP No.3354 of 1994 filed by the appellant was  allowed  by
the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court vide order dated  19.9.1994
and the termination of his service was quashed.  The  operative  portion  of
that order reads as under:
           “In the result I allow the writ petition,  quash  the  order  of
           dismissal dated February 11, 1988 and direct that the petitioner
           shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all  consequential
           benefits from the date of his  dismissal.  Needless  to  say  it
           would be open to the respondents,  if  so  advised,  to  proceed
           against the petitioner afresh as per the Rules of the  Education
           Code.”



3.    LPA  No.116/1994  filed  by  the  respondents  was  dismissed  by  the
Division Bench of  the  High  Court.   Thereafter,   the  Commissioner,  KVS
passed order dated 3.10.2000 for  reinstatement  of  the  appellant  with  a
stipulation that the period during which  he  had  not  worked,  i.e.,  from
11.2.1988 to the date of joining the duty shall be treated as ‘dies-non’.

4.    Since the appellant was not given  consequential  benefits,  he  filed
Contempt Petition No. 550/2000 which was disposed of by the  learned  Single
Judge of the High Court vide order dated 25.1.2001, the relevant portion  of
which is reproduced below:
           “In this case judgment of the learned Single Judge has merged in
           the judgment passed in LPA. There is no dispute about one aspect
           that the petitioner has  been  appointed  vide  annexure-2  vide
           order 3.10.2000 at page 33. In case there is non  compliance  of
           order of Division Bench then petitioner is at liberty to file  a
           fresh petition. With the above observations, the application and
           petition stand disposed of.”



5.    The appellant sent legal notice dated 20.2.2001 through  his  advocate
for grant of consequential benefits but the same was  rejected  vide  letter
dated 4.4.2001. Thereupon, he filed  Contempt  Petition  No.  151/2001.  The
learned Single Judge noted that the appellant had  already  been  reinstated
and a sum of Rs.11,48,625/- were paid to him by way of arrears  of  pay  and
allowances and directed the  non-petitioner  in  the  contempt  petition  to
consider his case for grant of such  benefits  to  which  he  may  be  found
entitled. The learned Single Judge also made it clear that if the  appellant
feels aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority then he shall  be
free to avail appropriate legal remedy.

6.    In the meanwhile, the  appellant  was  served  with  memorandum  dated
11.3.2002 and was called upon to  explain  as  to  why  disciplinary  action
should not be taken against him under Article 81(b) of  the  Education  Code
on six allegations,  three  of  which  related  to  misbehaviour  with  girl
students. The Enquiry Officer/Summary  Enquiry  Committee  submitted  report
dated 9.4.2002  with  the  finding  that  allegations  leveled  against  the
appellant have been  proved.  After  considering  the  Enquiry  Report,  the
Commissioner issued memorandum  dated  31.3.2003  proposing  to  pass  final
order under Article 81(b) of the Education Code and gave opportunity to  the
appellant to make representation in the context  of  the  findings  recorded
against  him.  The  appellant  submitted   detailed   representation   dated
15.4.2003 to contest the findings recorded  in  the  Enquiry  Report.  After
considering the same, the Commissioner, KVS  passed  order  dated  5.11.2003
and terminated the appellant’s service with immediate effect.

7.    The appellant challenged  memorandum  dated  31.3.2003  by  filing  an
application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, which  was
registered as OA No.2008/2003. He also  filed  a  miscellaneous  application
for stay of order dated  5.11.2003  passed  by  the  Commissioner,  KVS  for
termination of his service.  By an order  dated  29.12.2003,  the  Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal  (for  short,  ‘the  Tribunal’)
stayed the  operation  of  order  dated  5.11.2003.  The  Commissioner,  KVS
challenged that order in WP(C) No. 3141/2004, which was disposed of  by  the
Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated   16.8.2004,   the
substantive portion of which reads as under:

           “Petition is disposed of by providing that the termination order
           passed against the petitioner shall remain in abeyance  for  two
           months from this period. Tribunal is directed to dispose of  the
           OA of the respondent expeditiously.

           During this period, respondent will be deemed to be  in  service
           and petitioner shall pay 50% of  his  salaries  subject  to  the
           outcome of the OA. Respondent will not however enter the  school
           premises for discharge of his duties during this period in  view
           of the nature of allegations levelled  against  him.  This  will
           not, however be any expression of opinion on the merit of the OA
           or the nature of charges against the respondent.”


8.    OA No.2008/2003 was finally disposed of by  the  Tribunal  vide  order
dated 15.12.2005 and a direction was issued  to  the  Commissioner,  KVS  to
pass fresh order after considering the representation made by the  appellant
and  keeping  in  view  his  forthcoming  superannuation  with  effect  from
31.12.2005. Simultaneously, it  was  directed  that  the  respondents  shall
continue to pay 50% salary till the decision was taken in the matter.

9.    In view of the aforesaid  order  of  the  Tribunal,  the  Commissioner
considered  the  appellant’s   representation   and   passed   order   dated
20/24.01.2006 whereby he  again  terminated  the  appellant’s  service  with
immediate effect under Article 81(b) of  the  Education  Code  and  directed
that the amount payable to him in  terms  of  the  Tribunal’s  order  and  3
months pay and allowances in lieu of notice be paid to him immediately.  The
operative portion of that order reads as under:

           “Considering the gravity of the proven immoral behaviour towards
           girl students, I hereby terminate  the  services  of  Shri  R.S.
           Misra with  immediate  effect  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of
           Article 81(b) of Education Code  for  Kendriya  Vidyalaya.  This
           order is issued in compliance to the Orders dated 15.12.2005  of
           Hon’ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original  Application
           No.2008 of 2003. The amount payable to Sh.R.S. Misra in terms of
           Hon’ble CAT’s order as well as three month’s pay and  allowances
           in lieu of notice period also in terms of Article 81(b) be  paid
           to him immediately.”



10.    The  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  against  the  order  of   the
Commissioner was dismissed  by  the  Vice-Chairman,  KVS  vide  order  dated
18/21.4.2006.

11.   The appellant challenged the order  of  termination  as  well  as  the
appellate order in OA No. 996/2006, which was dismissed by the  Tribunal  by
observing that the exercise of power by  the  Chairman,  KVS  under  Article
81(b) did not suffer from any legal error. The writ petition  filed  by  the
appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High  Court.  The
same was the fate of review petition filed by him before the High Court  and
SLP(C) Nos.8219-8220/2010 filed before this Court.

12.   Having failed to convince the Tribunal, the High Court and this  Court
to  quash  the  termination  of  his  service,  the  appellant  filed  Civil
Miscellaneous Application No. 14140/2009 in Writ Petition  No.3902/2008  and
prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay him full  salary
for the period between 5.11.2003 and 24.1.2006.

13.   The Division Bench of the High Court referred  to  the  earlier  order
passed  in  WP(C)  No.  3141/2004  whereby  direction  was  given   to   the
respondents to pay 50% of salary to the appellant subject to the outcome  of
OA No.2008/2003, order  dated  15.12.2005  passed  by  the  Tribunal  in  OA
No.2008/2003 and held that in view of  the  directions  contained  in  those
orders, the appellant is not entitled to more than 50% salary.

14.   We have heard the appellant, who has appeared in person  and  Shri  S.
Rajappa, learned counsel for  the  respondents  and  carefully  perused  the
record. In our opinion, the  impugned  order  is  liable  to  be  set  aside
because the view taken by the High Court on the appellant’s  entitlement  to
get full salary for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005 is  ex-facie
erroneous. Once the  Tribunal  allowed  OA  No.2008/2003  and  directed  the
Commissioner to pass fresh order under Article 81(b) of the  Education  Code
after  considering  the  representation  submitted  by  the  appellant,  the
earlier order  terminating  his  service  will  be  deemed  to  have  become
redundant and the appellant will be deemed to be continuing in  service  for
all purposes. This conclusion is buttressed by  the  fact  that  vide  order
dated 24.1.2006, the Commissioner passed fresh order under Article 81(b)  of
the Education Code and terminated the  appellant’s  service  with  immediate
effect. The order passed by the High Court in  WP(C)  No.  3141/2004  was  a
sort of interim arrangement made to dilute the  impact  of  the  stay  order
passed by the Tribunal on 29.12.2003.  Therefore,  the  same  could  not  be
relied upon by the respondents and the High Court for denying the  appellant
of his right to get full salary between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005.

15.   It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor  it  was  argued
before us that during the pendency of the enquiry, the  appellant  was  kept
under suspension and he was  paid  subsistence  allowance.  This  being  the
position, there could be  no  justification  to  deny  full  salary  to  the
appellant for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005.

16.   In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set  aside
and the respondents are directed to pay full salary and  allowances  to  the
appellant for the period between 5.11.2003 and 31.12.2005.  The  needful  be
done within a period of two months from today by getting prepared  a  demand
draft in the appellant’s name, which shall be delivered at  his  residential
address on or before the end of two months period.


                                                    …..…...……..….………………….…J.
                                           [G.S. Singhvi]




                                                       ….…………..….………………….…J.
                                     [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi,
August 22, 2012.


-----------------------
8