- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. Petitioners v. Naresh Kumar Kataria
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, Shri Naresh Kataria, was a part-time vocational teacher (Stenography) posted at Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Daryapur Kalan. The Directorate of Education terminated his part-time appointment by an order dated 17 December 2009 issued in the name of the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) (Abha Joshi). The Tribunal quashed that termination order. The Tribunal's reasoning (set out in para 10 of its opinion) concluded that even a part-time teacher's services can be terminated only after complying with the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice, and that in this case the Department had acted with a pre-determined mind and the subsequent proceedings were a farce. The present opinion (by PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.) agrees with the Tribunal and disposes of the writ petition while allowing the Department to take action in accordance with law (including holding a summary inquiry as envisaged by the Supreme Court).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the termination of the respondent's part-time appointment complied with the principles of natural justice (including minimum procedural requirements) as required in cases of alleged misconduct/sexual harassment.
- Whether the temporary/part-time status of the respondent permitted termination without any inquiry or compliance with natural justice.
- Whether the inquiry and related show-cause proceedings demonstrated a pre-determined mind or were otherwise a sham such that the termination was invalid.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because the respondent was a part-time temporary employee, his services could be terminated without holding an inquiry.
Respondent's / Applicant's Arguments
- The respondent contended that the allegations (including allegations of sexual harassment by girl students) were motivated by enmity of the school Principal toward him.
- The respondent sought copies of statements made during the enquiry and, when unable to report on specified dates due to illness, furnished a medical certificate and sought further time to report; these facts were relied upon to show procedural unfairness.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Babban Prasad Yadav's case (supra) | Principles of natural justice must be complied with even in termination of part-time/contingent employees; minimum procedural compliance required in disciplinary inquiries (as relied upon by the Tribunal). | The Court concurred with the Tribunal's reliance on the decision and held that minimum compliance with natural justice was not observed in the present case. |
| Rathin Pal's case (supra) | Similarly invoked for the proposition that basic requirements of natural justice apply and must be followed in disciplinary action. | The Court accepted the Tribunal's use of this authority as supporting the requirement of minimum compliance; the Court agreed that the procedure here fell short. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis follows the chronology and factual findings recorded in the record and in the Tribunal's opinion:
- The Principal's letter dated 25 November 2009 stated that, on the basis of written complaints by students of classes 11th A and 12th A (Vocational stream) regarding "unethical and obscene behaviour," the respondent's services were "no more required" at the school and instructed him to contact the DDE (Vocational).
- The Principal's subsequent relieving letter (dated 27 November 2009) relieved the respondent from duty; the DDE (Vocational) issued a show-cause notice the same day (27/11/2009) alleging non-reporting on 26/11/2009 and 27/11/2009 and giving 24 hours to explain why his contingent appointment should not be terminated. The gravamen of that notice was failure to report, not the misconduct alleged by students.
- A further show-cause notice (dated 07/12/2009) repeated the non-compliance allegation and again gave 24 hours to reply. Neither show-cause notice set out the core allegations or required the respondent to meet the substantive complaints made by girl students.
- On 15 December 2009 the DDE questioned the respondent about complaints by girl students, but did not confront him with the contents of those complaints. The Court observed that while the identity of the students may be protected, the core contents of their complaints ought to have been put to the respondent so that he had a fair opportunity to answer specific allegations.
- The Court found that the Principal had prepared an opinion as early as 1 December 2009 concluding the respondent's guilt, which was thereafter signed by the DDE on 15 December 2009; this circumstance indicated that the Department had acted with a pre-determined mind and that the hearing of 15 December 2009 was a farce.
- Termination followed on 17 December 2009. On these facts the Court agreed with the Tribunal's conclusion that there was total violation of the principles of natural justice and that the departmental procedure demonstrated bias and predetermination.
- The Court addressed and rejected the petitioner's contention that part-time or contingent status permitted termination without inquiry, on the ground that the action taken was founded on alleged misconduct and purportedly after an enquiry which in reality was a sham; therefore minimum procedural protection still required compliance.
- The Court noted that the Tribunal relied on Supreme Court authorities concerning minimum compliance with natural justice in cases of complaints of sexual harassment by girl students, and the Court concurred that such minimum compliance had not been observed in the present case.
- Finally, because the Tribunal had permitted the Department to take action in accordance with law (including holding a summary inquiry as envisaged by the Supreme Court), the Court dismissed the writ petition rather than ordering reinstatement without further lawful process.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court dismissed the writ petition and agreed with the Tribunal that the Department had acted with a pre-determined mind and violated the principles of natural justice in the termination of the respondent's part-time appointment.
Consequences and practical implications:
- The immediate termination order of 17 December 2009 was found to have been issued after procedurally defective proceedings; the Tribunal's quashing of that termination is the factual backdrop to the present disposal.
- The Department was permitted to take action in accordance with law by conducting further proceedings, including a summary inquiry as envisaged by the Supreme Court authorities relied upon by the Tribunal and the Court.
- The petitioner's submission that part-time status permits termination without any inquiry was expressly rejected on the facts of this case because the action purportedly rested on misconduct after an enquiry that was a farce.
- The related application for ad-interim relief (CM No. 5269/2012) was disposed of as infructuous because the writ petition itself was disposed of.
This opinion does not purport to lay down any new precedent; it applies previously declared principles (as relied upon by the Tribunal) concerning minimum procedural safeguards and natural justice to the facts before the Court.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Record perused.
3. Respondent was a part time vocational teacher (Stenography) appointed by the Directorate of Education and was posted at Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya vidyalaya, Daryapur Kalan. His services were terminated vide order dated December 17, 2009, which reads as under:-
“To,
Shri Naresh Kataria, Part-time Vocational teacher, (Stenography, English),
S/o Sh. Pokar Das,
H. No.-1072, V&P.O.-Bawana, Delhi-110 039.
Sir,
I am directed to convey that the competent authority has terminated your part-time appointment on contingent basis in Vocational Education Branch with immediate effect.
Sd/(ABHA JOSHI) Dy. Director of Education (Voc.)”
4. The order has been quashed by the Tribunal.
5. The reasoning of the Tribunal is in para 10 of the opinion of the Tribunal, which reads as under;-
“10. In our considered opinion, even if the appellant is a part time teacher, his services can be terminated only after duly complying with the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Apex Court in Babban Prasad Yadav's case (supra) and Rathin Pal's case (supra). The applicant's contention is that it was due to the enmity of the Principal of the school with him, the allegations of sexual harassment of the girl students was made against him. His aforesaid contention is fortified by the fact that the Principal of the school has already made up her mind to terminate his services as seen from her Annexure A-2 letter dated 25.11.2009 She has stated clearly in the said letter that his services were no more required in the school and he has been asked to contact the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). The Principal has not fixed any date or time limit for the applicant to meet the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). After two days, i.e 27.11.2009, the Principal has issued the relieving order of the applicant referring to her earlier letter dated 25.11.2009 The said letter says that the applicant was relieved from his duty from the school with immediate effect. But he was again asked to contact the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) immediately. On the very same date, the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) issued him a show cause notice stating that he did not report to him on 26.11.2009 or on 27.11.2009 He was also given time of 24 hours to explain as to why his services should not be terminated with immediate effect. However, it is seen from the record that on 9.11.2009 he was given the last opportunity to appear before Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 11.11.2009 He appeared before the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 15.11.2009 and the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) asked him 26 questions. Applicant sought a copy of the statements made during enquiry held by the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational). Thereafter nothing more had happened. By letter dated 28.11.2009, the applicant informed the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) that he could not report to him on 26.11.2009 or 27.11.2009 as he was down with fever. He has also enclosed a medical certificate. He sought further time to report to him on 30.11.2009 Accordingly, he presented himself before Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 30.11.2009 Again vide another show cause notice dated 7.12.2009, the Dy. Director of Education again asked the applicant to show cause within 24 hours as to why his service should not be terminated with immediate effect. No reason for his proposed termination from service was mentioned in the show cause notice. It is not understood as to how the applicant could make any representation against the proposed termination of service, where he was informed about the reasons for doing so. Again vide letter dated 9.12.2009, the applicant was asked to appear before the Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) on 11.12.2009 Later, vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 Dy. Director of Education (Vocational) informed the applicant that the competent authority has terminated his part time appointment with immediate effect. In our considered opinion, applicant was terminated from service without following any procedure which has got semblance of natural justice. When the Principal has already decided and held that his services were no more required in the school on 15.11.2009, all the subsequent show cause notices and questioning him were all farse.”
6. Since we concur with the reasoning of the Tribunal we pen a short opinion.
7. The record would reveal that on November 25, 2009 the Principal of the school informed petitioner as under:-
“Mr. Naresh Kataria
Voc.-Tr.
C/o U.K.S.K.V Dariyapur Kalan, Delhi.
Sir,
As per the written complaint filed by all the students of class 11th A + 12 A (Voc. Stream) regarding your unethical and obscene behaviour with them, your services are no more required in this school.
You may contact the DDE (Voc.) in this regard. This report is submitted to both DDEs (Voc. as well as DDE NWA) for their knowledge and further action.
Sd/
(Saraswati Arya)”
8. Suffice would it be to state that a Government servant has to be relieved under a proper authorization requiring him to report to such place where he has to report for duty. Regretfully, the Principal of the school did not do so. It was only on November 27, 2009 that the Principal of the school relieved the respondent. It was only then that he could report to the DDE (Voc.).
9. On November 27, 2009 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent as under:-
“SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
Whereas Sh. Naresh Kataria is a part-time Teacher (Voc) in Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya Daryapur Kalan Delhi.
And whereas vide letter dated 25.11.2009 of Principal Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya Daryapur Kalan, Delhi he was directed to report to the office of DDE (Vocational) Plot No. 5 Jhandewalan Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005 immediately.
And whereas Mr. Naresh Kataria did not report to DDE (Voc.) on 26.11.2009 nor on 27.11.2009
Now, therefore Mr. Naresh Kataria is directed to show-cause within 24 hrs why his appointment purely on contingent basis as part-time Teacher (Voc.) may not be terminated with immediate effect. In case no reply is received within 24 hrs, it would be presumed that he has nothing to say and his contingent appointment would stand terminated/cancelled with immediate effect.
Sh. Naresh Kataria
Part-time Teacher (Voc.)
Updesh Kaur SKV Daryapur Kalan Delhi
SD/x x x
(Abha Joshi)
Dy. Director of Education (Voc.)”
10. We only need to highlight that the gravamen of the show cause notice is that the respondent defied the letter dated November 25, 2009 by not reporting to the DDE (Voc.). It was not the gravamen that the respondent had acted in a manner which was unbecoming of a teacher vis-avis girl students.
11. On December 07, 2009 another show cause notice was issued to the respondent which reads as under:-
“Show-Cause Notice
Whereas, Sh. Naresh Kataria has a Part-time Vocational Teacher in Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Daryapur Kalan Delhi.
And whereas vide letter dated 25/11/2009 of Principal, Updesh Kaur Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Daryapur Kalan, Delhi, he was directed to report to the office of DDE (Vocational) Plot No. 5: Jhandewalan: Karol Bagh: New Delhi-110 005 immediately.
And whereas, since Sh. Naresh Kataria did not report in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education (Vocational) on 26//11/2009 nor on 27/11/2009, a show cause notice was issued vide letter No. F.DE-45/(Misc.)/VE/2009/1039 dated 27/11/2009.
And whereas, subsequently Sh. Naresh Kataria presented himself in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education (Vocational) on 30/11/2009.
And whereas, Sh. Naresh Kataria didn't report in the Office of the Deputy Director of Education (Vocational) since 01/12/2009.
Now, therefore, Sh. Naresh Kataria is once again required to show-cause for non-compliance of the orders within 24 hrs. why his appointment purely on contingent basis as Part-time (Teacher) (Voc.) may not be terminated with immediate effect. In case no reply is received within 24 hrs, it would be presumed that he has nothing to say and his contingent appointment would stand terminated/cancelled with immediate effect.
Sh. Naresh Kataria, (Part-time Vocational Teacher) S/o Sh. Pokar Das,
H. No. 1072, V&P.O.-Bawana, Delhi - 110 039
Sd/
(ABHA JOSHI) Dy. Director of Education (Voc.)”
12. And suffice would it be to state that even therein not even a whisper is to be found that the respondent is required to respond to some complaints made by girl students qua respondent's conduct which was objectionable.
13. The record would reveal that on December 15, 2009, the DDE (Voc.) had quizzed the respondent with respect to some complaints made by girl students. The respondent was not confronted with the contents of the complaints.
14. We could have understood that to preserve the anonymity of the girl students their names could be withheld or such particulars could be withheld which would have exposed the identity of the girls, but in the core contents of the complaints, the respondents had to be confronted therewith.
15. But what we find to be more objectionable is that the Principal of the school had already prepared an opinion, with a conclusion, on December 01, 2009, which was blindly signed by the DDE (Voc.) on December 15, 2009. The conclusion is that the respondent is guilty of misbehaviour with girl students. Thus the hearing held on December 15, 2009, was a farce.
16. Order terminating services was issued on December 17, 2009.
17. From the facts noted hereinabove it is apparent, and we hold that the Tribunal has rightly concluded, that the Department has acted with a pre-determined mind against the respondent.
18. We find total violation of principles of natural justice.
19. It may be true that where complaints are made by girl students against a male teacher, while conducting an inquiry, the identity and honour of the girls has to be preserved, but at the same time minimum requirement of natural justice has to be complied with. This would mean that without disclosing the name of the girls, contents of the complaints have to be put to the person charged of misconduct. For example a girl student may allege that on December 01, 2012 the teacher had called her to the staff room after school time was over. This has to be confronted to the teacher charged of, for the reason the teacher may have evidence that on that particular day he was absent or that at the given time he was in a committee meeting.
20. We have only recorded by way of illustration.
21. We note that the Tribunal has relied upon the law declared by the Supreme Court on the subject of minimum compliance with principle of natural justice where complaints of sexual harassment are made by girl students against a male teacher. We concur with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the instant case said minimum compliance has not been made.
22. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was a part time temporary employee and thus services could be terminated without any inquiry is noted and rejected for the reason the action has been taken against the respondent founded on a misconduct after an inquiry, which was a farce.
23. Noting finally that the Tribunal has permitted the Department to take action as per law by even holding a summary inquiry as envisaged by the decision of the Supreme Court, we dismiss the writ petition.
CM No. 5269/2012
Since the writ petition stands disposed of, instant application seeking ad-interim relief till disposal of the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.
Alert