Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye & Anr

These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2002 of Bombay High Court by which the second appeal preferred by the respondent Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye was allowed and the suit filed by him was decreed setting aside the order of termination of services dated 21.3.1975 and directing his reinstatement with full back wages. The appellant preferred a review petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 3.11.2003 and the said order is also under challenge.

2. The respondent Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye was appointed on a temporary post of Physical Education Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 25.6.1974. His services were terminated vide order dated 21.3.1975 in accordance with conditions of appointment mentioned in the appointment order. He filed a suit for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 21.3.1975 was illegal, inoperative and not binding upon him. The main plea taken in the suit instituted by the respondent was that his services had been terminated by way of punishment as an enquiry had been held behind his back in which some witnesses were examined and after completion of the enquiry, in which he had not been given any opportunity to defend himself, a report was submitted against him and on the basis of the said report his services were terminated. The suit was defended by the appellant on several grounds and the principal ground being that the services of the petitioner had not been terminated by way of punishment, but in terms of the appointment order. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Pune, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.1986 and the appeal preferred by the respondent against the said decree was also dismissed by VII Additional District Judge, Pune, by the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1987. The second appeal preferred by the respondent was, however, allowed by the High Court and the suit was decreed as mentioned earlier.

The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bombay Region issued an order on 21.3.1975 terminating the services of the respondent with effect from 30.4.1975 and the said order reads as under :

5. The principal ground taken by the respondent in the suit instituted by him was that an enquiry had been conducted behind his back in which a finding had been recorded against him and on the basis of the said enquiry his services had been terminated and thus it was not a simple order of termination of services but had been passed by way of punishment, in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the relevant facts in this regard. One Capt. V.K. Balasubramanyam sent a letter to the Station Commander, Dehu Road on 21.2.1975 stating that his son Master V.K. Srinivasalu, who was studying in IXth Class had developed serious chest pain on 18th February, 1975 and in spite of his having informed that he was not well, the PT teacher made him to run six rounds (approx. 4 kms) around the school. As the child was not well, he was examined in the Military Hospital on 20th February and the doctor prescribed him some medicines and gave a written advice that he should not do P.T. or other exercises for a week. This was shown to the class teacher who gave a note in writing to the PT teacher exempting the child from PT and other exercises. In spite of doctor's advice and written note of the class teacher, the PT teacher forced the boy to do PT and being unable to do so, he was beaten. It was further mentioned in the letter that this was not the only occasion when corporal punishment had been meted out to the students by the respondent as earlier also this fact had been brought to the notice of the executive committee of the school by Lt. Col. G.V. Lucas and the Principal had promised to stop the mal-practice as corporal punishment was against the rules of the Central School. The Principal of the school forwarded the complaint of Capt. Balasubramanyam to the Regional office of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bombay on 25.2.1975. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan then wrote to the Principal on 1.3.1975 to send a report along with original statements regarding the complaint of beating to the students by the respondent. For the purposes of sending the report an enquiry was conducted in which statements of eight students including Master V.K. Srinivasalu were recorded. The Principal had earlier asked for an explanation from the respondent vide his letter dated 26.2.1975 which he had given. The statement of the students was recorded in the presence of the respondent wherein he was allowed to put questions to them. He was again asked to give his own statement, which he refused to give. The enquiry officer then submitted his opinion on 7.3.1975 and the same is being reproduced below :-

11. In Ravindra Kumar Misra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. and another AIR 1987 SC 2408, the appellant had been appointed on 30.10.1976 and had got two promotions while still working in temporary status and by 1982 he had been working as Deputy Production Manager. On 22.11.1982 he was placed under suspension and the suspension order recited that as a result of preliminary inquiries made by the Central Manager it had come to notice that the appellant was responsible for misconduct, dereliction of duty, mismanagement and showing fictitious production of terrycot cloth. The suspension order was revoked on 1.2.1983 and thereafter on 10.2.1983 a simple order terminating his services was passed reciting that his services were no more required and his services would be deemed to be terminated from the date of receipt of the notice. It was further mentioned therein that he would be entitled to receive one month's salary in lieu of notice period. The termination order was challenged by the appellant on the ground that the same was punitive in nature, which was also demonstrated from the fact that shortly before the order of termination a suspension order had been passed wherein a specific charge of misconduct against him was mentioned. After referring to several earlier decisions this Court repelled the challenge made by the employee by observing as under in paragraph 6 of the Report: -

16. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2002 passed in Second Appeal No.463 of 1988 and also the order dated 3.11.2003 passed in review petition by the High Court are set aside. The decrees passed by the two Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the respondent are affirmed. No order as to costs.