IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18311 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.546/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, COCHIN REGIONAL IIT CAMPUS, CHENNAI - 600 036. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER(ADMINISTRATION) & APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN 18,INSTITUTUIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110 016. BY ADV. M/S.IYER & IYER, SC.KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SRI.V.V.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUKUMARI AMMA,TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (MATHS),KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA NO.1 CALICUT, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE VALLIAZHATHU, MARARIKULAM NORTH P.O.,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18311 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 30th June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.546/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent was the applicant in that O.A. She filed Ext.P1 O.A., challenging Annexure-A10 order of the disciplinary authority, imposing a punishment of bar of three increments without cumulative effect and also Annexure-A12 order of the appellate authority, affirming the same. 2. The charge against the applicant was that while she was handling Mathematics for Class X during the years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 as T.G.T. (Maths) in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, Cochin, the percentage of pass was 73.33, 74.28 and 66.67 respectively. This consistent poor performance, which fell below 85%, indicates her lack of devotion to duty, which is a misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. WPC 18311/08 2 3. The applicant submitted her reply, denying the charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who held the enquiry and gave the following finding: “On the whole, while the teachers incompetence to teach Mathematics in Class X stands exposed, any willful negligence in the discharge of official duties with dishonest motive does not appear to stand established in the inquiry.” The above report would show that the Enquiry Officer has not found that there is lack of devotion to duty from the part of the delinquent – applicant. The disciplinary authority did not overrule the said finding, after issuing notice to the applicant. But, straightaway relying on that finding, imposed the punishment of bar of three increments without cumulative effect. Annexure-A10 is the said order. Her appeal was also dismissed, as mentioned earlier, by Annexure-A12 order. The applicant prayed before the C.A.T., for quashing those orders. The respondents in the O.A resisted the application, by submitting Ext.P2 reply statement. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both sides and allowed the O.A by Ext.P3 order, quashing the impugned orders Annexures-A10 and A12. The respondents 1 and 2 before the C.A.T have come up before this Court, challenging the said order of the C.A.T. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the WPC 18311/08 3 Enquiry Officer has found that there is lack of devotion to duty from the part of the teacher. We have already quoted the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer in his report, which is produced as Annexure-A7 along with Ext.P1 O.A. So, we cannot agree with the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Of course, the disciplinary authority may have overruled the finding of the Enquiry Officer and found the applicant guilty, based on the materials on record, after issuing notice to her. In this case, no such exercise was undertaken and therefore, the punishment imposed on her, based on the finding, available as part of the records, made by the Enquiry Officer, is unsustainable. Further, it is a well-settled position in law that inefficiency cannot be made a ground for taking disciplinary action. See the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. J.Ahmed [AIR 1979 SC 1022]. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/