KRISHNAPPA C B vs THE COMMISSIONER NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA SAMITI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL EDUCATION AND LITERACY UTTAR PRADESH on 14 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The sole applicant who is a PGT (Chemistry) teacher under the 1st and 2nd respondents’, challenges Annexure A7 order by which his application alleging bias against the inquiry officer was rejected,

Annexure A13, the inquiry report dated 3.9.2019, Annexure A15, the order of penalty, Annexure A16 order dated 27.9.2019 by which he was transferred to Pune and Annexure A17, the relieving order dated 9.10.2019, by which he was relieved from JNV, Kozhikode on being transferred to Sangli.

2. Applicant joined the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in the year 1998 as a TGT. After several postings, he was transferred to Kozhikode. While so, Annexure A1 charge memo dated 8.3.2012 was served on him raising allegations against him with respect to his conduct during his tenure as a Teacher in Andhra Pradesh. That order was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 960 of 2016, before this Tribunal. By Annexure A2 order dated 6.12.2017, the applicant was suspended from service. That was challenged by him in OA No. 1049 of 2019.

3. Annexure A4 charge memo dated 21.2.2018 was served on him raising four charges. Alleging that the charges were vague and hence not sustainable, applicant challenged it in OA No. 452 of 2018. By Annexure A5 order dated 13.6.2018 of this Tribunal in the above OA, the respondents were directed to complete the inquiry within six months.

However, the inquiry was not completed. Hence, on the request of the respondents, by Annexure A6 order dated 22.1.2019, in MA No. 1368 of 2018, the time limit was extended by two months. The 4th respondent was later appointed as inquiry officer. He was an Assistant Commissioner of the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti. Alleging that the inquiry was not properly conducted and that the inquiry officer was highly biased, the applicant filed a bias petition dated 18.12.2019 before the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner. The 2nd respondent forwarded it to the 1st respondent Commissioner. The 5th respondent, the Joint Commissioner, by Annexure A7 order dated 20.6.2019 communicated the rejection of the bias petition.

4. Again, by Annexure A8 order dated 28.6.2019 in MA No. 321 of 2019 in OA No. 452 of 2018, the time for completion of the inquiry was extended by two more months with a rider that if the inquiry was not completed within the stipulated time, the inquiry will be declared as non est.

5. According to the applicant, the inquiry officer was heavily hostile to him and he showed urgency to complete the inquiry, without complying with the legal formalities. Annexure A9 is the daily order sheet which shows that the 4th respondent was not interested in conducting the inquiry in a fair manner.

6. Regular hearing in the inquiry was held between 31.1.2018 to 7.8.2019. On 7.8.2019 the inquiry proceedings commenced and SW-10, SW-11 and SW-12 were examined in chief. However, the 4th respondent did not allow the applicant to cross examine those witnesses and closed the evidence of those witnesses. Consequently, the applicant and the defence assistant did not affix their signature on 7.8.2019, since they were not allowed to cross-examine those witnesses. However, on 14.8.2019 the applicant received a communication through e-mail from the 4th respondent, requesting him to submit his written brief before 26.8.2019. The said communication is produced as Annexure A10. The applicant submitted Annexure A11 written brief dated 16.8.2019. The 4th respondent has violated the mandate of Rule 14(16) of CCS (CCA) Rules. After the closure of the disciplinary proceedings, the inquiry authority did not provide an opportunity to the applicant to state his defence orally or in writing. Further Rule 14(17) provides that the witness of the Government servant should be examined, cross-examined and re- examined. Thereafter Rule 14(19) hearing has to be followed and the delinquent is entitled to file the written briefs. 4th respondent committed blanket violation of the above mandate.

7. The applicant had submitted Annexure A12 list of witness dated 13.8.2017. While so, Annexure A13 inquiry report was submitted by the inquiry officer. The covering letter is Annexure A14. Thereafter, Annexure A15 penalty order was issued by which the penalty of reduction of pay by five stages was imposed on him for a period of five years with immediate effect. It was further directed that during the period of currency of penalty, he will not earn increments. Along with that, by Annexure A15 order dated 27.9.2019, the applicant was transferred to Pune region.

8. Contending that the applicant was not given an effective opportunity to examine the witnesses, that the inquiry was not fair and that it was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, the present OA has been filed. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as under:

“a) Call for the records leading to Annexure A7 order dated 20.6.2019 and set aside the same;

b) Call for the records leading to Annexure A13 Enquiry Report dated 3.9.2019 and set aside the same; c) Call for the records leading to Annexure A15, A16 and A17 orders and set aside the same;

d) to issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to reduce the pay of the applicant on the basis of Annexure A15 order and also direct the respondents 1 to 3 to repay the amount already illegally reduced to the applicant; forthwith.

e) to issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to transfer back the applicant to J.N.V. Kozhikode, Kerala.

f) to declare that Annexure A13 Inquiry Report, Annexure A15 to A17 orders are non est in the eye of law;

g) to issue a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove/recall the 4th respondent Inquiry Officer from the enquiry proceedings, appoint a new Inquiry Officer and to start the enquiry proceedings afresh;

h) to issue a direction or injunction restraining the 4th respondent from proceeding with the enquiry proceedings during the pendency of the Original Application;

i) to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith.”

9. The respondents 1 to 5 filed a joint reply statement denying the said allegations. It was stated that after the inquiry commenced several requests were made by the applicant seeking change of venue and adjournments. During the preliminary inquiry on 5.7.2018, the inquiry officer had asked the applicant whether he had any objection, in that inquiry officer conducting the inquiry. Applicant stated that he had no objection for the appointment and expressed full faith on him. It was thereafter, the inquiry commenced. After the examination of three witnesses on 18.2.2019, a bias petition was filed by the applicant. Hence, the inquiry officer stopped the proceedings and referred the matter to the disciplinary authority for further action. It was stated that the inquiry was liberal and generous in extending all opportunities to the applicant to defend himself as per the Rules. However, the applicant and his defence assistant levelled baseless corruption charges against the inquiry officer in the bias petition.

10. After the disposal of the bias petition, regular hearing restarted on 10.7.2019. The applicant submitted his defence documents on that day. Inquiry officer permitted the applicant to submit the defence documents and marked them as DE-1 to DE-53. The cross-examination of witness No. 3 was held for 1½ days on 11.7.2019 to 12.7.2019 through his defence assistant. Cross-examination of SW-14 also went for two days. It clearly shows that the applicant was given sufficient opportunity. The applicant through his defence assistant, on 6.8.2019 made a submission to the inquiry officer to summon 21 parents who had signed the complaint regarding the poor teaching skills of the applicant. The applicant argued that if 21 signatories are not summoned as witnesses, to identify the signatures and to authenticate the contents, there is no evidentiary value to SE-4. When SW-14 was examined, she denied the signature found on the defence exhibit-28. Hence, the defence assistant requested the inquiry officer to send the defence exhibit to handwriting expert. These attempts were only to drag on the inquiry proceedings. Further the defence assistant on 7.8.2019 created a precarious situation wherein he neither allowed the witnesses to depose properly nor he allowed the inquiry officer to take appropriate decisions with regard to the conduct of the inquiry. Though the inquiry proceedings were conducted as per Rules, the applicant through his defence assistant requested the higher authorities to depute an observer from NVS, Headquarters. When the applicant and defence assistant were asked to cross-examine SW-12 on 7.8.2019, they refused to do so and abruptly left the venue without any intimation. The applicant nor his defence assistant were heeding to the advice given by the inquiry officer to conclude the inquiry within the limit prescribed by the Tribunal.

11. The allegation that the inquiry was not in accordance with Rules is incorrect. The delinquent and the defence assistant raised irrelevant objections and made unwarranted and unnecessary submissions to scuttle the proceedings at every stage of inquiry. Departmental inquiry was

concluded on 7.8.2019. Charged officer and defence assistant abruptly left the venue of inquiry without any intimation. A copy of the written brief of the presenting officer was supplied to the charged officer. Accordingly, it was contended that the prayers sought in the Original Application were not sustainable and consequently, liable to be rejected.

12. Heard both sides and examined the records.

13. Before analysing the contentions advanced by the applicant and the contentions raised thereon, it is necessary to briefly refer to the crucial facts leading to the impugned orders. Annexure A4 is the charge memo dated 21.2.2018 by which four specific charges were raised against the applicant. It alleged about he inflicted corporal punishment on three students, poor standard of teaching, adopting unethical methods in teaching and using of unparliamentary words in classes. By Annexure A2 dated 6.12.2017, he was suspended from service. Memo of charges and the articles of charges dated 21.2.2018 was served on him as Annexure A4. Along with articles of charges, list of 81 documents and 64 witnesses were mentioned. The memo of charges was challenged by the applicant in OA No. 452 of 2018. By Annexure A4 order dated 13.6.2018 respondents were granted six months’ time to complete the inquiry. Thereafter, by Annexure A5 order dated 22.1.2015, further period of two months was granted. Thereafter, by Annexure A8 order of this Tribunal dated 28.6.2019, the period of completing the inquiry was again extended by two months with a rider that if the inquiry was not completed within the stipulated time, it will be declared as non est.

14. The inquiry proceedings commenced with a preliminary hearing on 5.8.2018. The applicant admitted the receipt of the memo of charges and denied the charges. He affirmed that he had no objection in the inquiry officer conducting the inquiry. Thereafter, an application for inspection of records was submitted by the applicant on 20.8.2018. Recording of evidence was conducted from 31.1.2018 till 7.8.2019. The 12 witnesses produced on the side of the respondents were examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The original applicant did not attend inquiry after 7.8.2019 and Annexure A13 inquiry report dated 3.9.2019 was submitted. Pursuant to the findings in the report Annexure A15, penalty was imposed. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to another station from Annexure A16 order and relieved from the then station by Annexure A17.

15. The applicant assailed the impugned orders on the following specific grounds:

i) The bias petition filed by him dated 18.2.2019 was improperly rejected by Annexure A7 order dated 20.6.2019. The applicant was not given an opportunity to explain the grounds.

ii) The inquiry was completed after the time prescribed by the Tribunal and hence it was contrary to Annexure A8 order in OA No. 452 of 2018. Accordingly, the inquiry ought to be declared as non est.

iii) The inquiry was not conducted properly. The delinquent and his defence assistant were not permitted to effectively cross- examine the witness and to adduce their evidence.

iv) Though Annexure A12 witness list dated 31.8.2017 was submitted, the applicant was not granted opportunity to adduce evidence.

v) After closing the evidence abruptly on 7.8.2019 by Annexure A10 dated 14.8.2019, the applicant was required to submit written brief. No opportunity was granted to the applicant to adduce evidence and hence, the entire proceedings was in violation of Rule 14(16) to Rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

vi) The conclusions arrived at by the inquiry authority was not supported by legally admissible evidence and the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry authority are wrong.

vii) Major penalty imposed on the applicant by Annexure A15 was disproportionate to the guilt established.

viii) The applicant, by Annexure A16 was transferred from Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kozhikode to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Sangli. Annexure A16 transfer order issued after imposing Annexure A15 penalty amounted to double jeopardy.

16. Advancing first ground of challenge, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the bias petition filed by him was rejected by Annexure A7 order dated 20.6.2019 without proper consideration and without basis. It was contended by the applicant that the bias petition was filed by him at the first available opportunity. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the Supreme Court in South Indian Cashew Factories Workers’ Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 201] had held that bias petition should be filed by the aggrieved person at the earliest. However, it was dismissed by the disciplinary authority without a proper consideration.

17. It is seen from Annexure A7 that the applicant had filed the bias petition dated 18.2.2019. The copy of the bias petition is not produced along with the OA. Hence, we did not have the benefit of understanding the nature of allegations raised in the application. However, it has been referred to in the Original Application as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that the 4th respondent enquiry officer from the very inception was nurturing an ill-will against the applicant and he was continuously interrupting the conduct of enquiry proceedings without any reason whatsoever. In the course of enquiry, particularly during cross examination when questions were put by the defence assistant engaged by the applicant, to the state witnesses to bring out true facts, the 4th respondent illegally interfered and objected to those questions and refused to record the questions and answers of the witnesses as stated by them. Resultantly, important evidences were deliberately shut down by the enquiry officer, which was unbecoming of an enquiry officer and entire enquiry proceedings being led to a mockery. Thus, the inquiry officer was totally biased.”

18. Annexure A13 proceedings indicate that the charged officer along with the defence assistant was present before the inquiry officer on 5.7.2018 for the preliminary inquiry. The next hearing was posted on 20.7.2018. It could not be held on that day and was adjourned to 30.7.2018. The charged officer and the defence assistant did not attend the hearing on 30.7.2018. It was informed that no information was received from the charged officer and hence, the inspection of records could not be held on 30.7.2018. Thereafter, the examination in chief of SW-2 was conducted on 18.2.2019. The delinquent attended and after her deposition was recorded, it was signed by the presenting officer, charged officer and the defence assistant. It was recorded in the proceedings that at that stage it was informed that a bias petition has been filed. It is clear from the above proceeding that only the examination-in-chief of SW-2 took place on that day. In the above circumstances, the contention of the applicant that the inquiry officer was biased throughout the proceedings cannot be true. It is beyond comprehensions as to how one could attribute bias to the inquiry officer, even before the commencement of recording of evidence.

19. Yet another grievance of the applicant regarding the rejection of the bias petition is that he was not given an opportunity of hearing on the bias petition. There is nothing on record to show that in fact he had requested for a hearing, on the bias petition. Further, the bias petition had to be decided on the basis of available records. In Annexure A7 it is specifically stated that there was nothing to indicate the bias and accordingly, it was rejected. We also agree that in the absence of anything to establish bias, Annexure A7 order is unassailable.

20. The next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that Annexure A13 report was submitted much beyond the time prescribed by the Tribunal by Annexures A5, A6 and A8 orders and hence, the inquiry report is to be declared as non est as beyond time.

21. By Annexure A5 order in OA No. 452 of 2018 dated 13.6.2018 the inquiry authority was directed to complete the inquiry within a period of six months. Thereafter, by Annexure A8 order dated 28.6.2019 the period was extended for a period of two months from the date of order i.e. 28.6.2019. It was further provided that if the inquiry could not be completed within the time limit prescribed the process will be deemed to be non est.

22. It is seen from the records that the preliminary hearing of inquiry was held only on 5.7.2018. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions for various reasons as mentioned in the report. The inquiry report and Annexure A9 clearly show that applicant has also contributed to the delay. It is also seen that the applicant submitted the bias petition on 18.2.2019 which was disposed of on 20.6.2019. Hence, a delay of four months occurred in the meanwhile. It is also seen from the records which will be dealt with in later that several dilatory tactics were adopted by the applicant herein which has considerably prolonged the proceedings. Simultaneously, the applicant pursued the contention that the inquiry authority was not completing the proceedings within the stipulated time and hence sought a declaration that inquiry was non est. On one side, the applicant himself has contributed for the delay and at the same time accused the inquiry officer that the time limit was not complied with. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to hold that the inquiry proceeding is liable to be declared as non est.

23. The next three grounds namely grounds (iii) to (v), can be considered together since overlapping facts arises in these contentions. The first contention was that the delinquent as well as the defence assistant were not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. Further they contend that the entire inquiry was abruptly closed on 7.8.2019 and the witnesses mentioned in Annexure A12 dated 31.8.2017 were not permitted to be examined. The further contention was that by Annexure A10 dated 14.8.2019, the applicant was required to submit his written brief. No opportunity to adduce evidence was granted and that the procedure followed by the inquiry officer was in violation of Rule 14(16) to Rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

24. According to the applicant, after abruptly completing the examination of the witnesses on 7.8.2019, the inquiry officer issued Annexure A10 order dated 14.8.2019 requiring the applicant to submit his brief. Further, effective regular hearings were conducted only from 31.1.2018 to 7.8.2019 and thereafter there was no regular proceedings of the inquiry. Annexure A10 notice was issued dated 14.8.2019 by the inquiry officer calling upon the applicant to file his written brief. Hence, the inquiry proceeding was vitiated, it was contended.

25. In this regard, what transpired on 7.8.2019 and on the previous days, needs to be considered in detail as revealed from Annexure A13, the inquiry report, and Annexures A9 and A10 produced by the applicant himself.

26. The inquiry report indicates that prior to the commencement of the examination of witnesses on 1.12.2019, the charged officer requested the inquiry officer to arrange for recording of the proceedings of the inquiry through audio and video recording. Since there was no provision for such arrangements, proceedings were held under the CCTV coverage in the office of the Principal, JNV, Kozhikode. No explanation is forthcoming for making such a demand at the time of inception of the inquiry itself. In the absence of any material to show that the applicant, did not doubt the credibility of the inquiry officer at that time, the demand made appears to be an unreasonable one. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 18.2.2019 on which day the examination of SW-2 was conducted. It was signed by both sides. At that point of time, it was informed that a bias petition was filed. After the disposal of the bias petition, regular hearing commenced on 10.7.2019. The charged officer submitted his defence documents on that day. According to the inquiry officer, he was permitted to submit his defence documents. Those documents were marked as DE-1 to DE-53. It is noted by the inquiry officer that the cross-examination of one girl student SW-3, was conducted for 1½ days on 11.7.2019 to 12.7.2019 by the defence assistant. The cross-examination of SW-14 the Principal, JNV, Kozhikode was held for two days on 5th and 6th of August, 2019. In the meanwhile, a request was made by the charged officer to summon 21 parents, all of whom have signed on a complaint submitted to the Principal, against the applicant. The inquiry authority at page 7 of the inquiry report states that both the charged officer and the defence assistant were not heeding to the advice given by the inquiry officer to conclude the inquiry within the time limit prescribed by the CAT. Both raised irrelevant objections and made unwarranted and unnecessary submissions to scuttle the proceedings at every stage, it is recorded. However, the applicant had cross-examined all the witnesses presented on the side of the respondents except witness No. SW-12.

27. It is seen from the records that the charged officer had sought for production of 148 additional documents which was partly allowed directing the production of 46 relevant documents. Regarding the documents sought by the applicant, it is noted that they were voluminous documents including the attendance register of staff and students, MOD report, PTC registers, etc.

28. In Annexure A10 rejoinder submitted by the inquiry authority in reply to the allegations raised against him by the applicant, it is stated that the delinquent as well as the defence assistant were present in the inquiry held on 7.8.2019. After the examination of SW-11 and the chief examination of SW-12, both of them left the venue abruptly refusing to cross-examine SW-12 and to sign the deposition of witnesses Nos. SW- 10, SW-11 and SW-12 on 7.8.2019, without offering any reason for their refusal to do so. It is clear from the records including Annexures A9 and A10 produced by the applicant himself, that the applicant and his defence assistant left the inquiry without cross-examining the witness and also without signing the deposition papers. Strangely, the explanation offered in the Original Application regarding the conduct of both the applicant and his defence assistant on 7.8.2019 is that inquiry officer did not permit them to sign the proceedings and depositions. Thereafter, it seems that applicant had sent a communication to the inquiry authority raising very serious allegations against him.

29. In this regard, Annexure A9 produced by the applicant itself discloses how the cross-examination of SW-14 the Principal of the school was conducted by the defence assistant. As indicated earlier, the said witness was cross-examined for two days. The submission of SW-14 before the inquiry authority on the second day (7.8.2019) is recorded in Annexure A9. She had complained before the inquiry authority that inspite of her ill health, still in compliance with the notice issued by the inquiry authority, she had appeared before the inquiry officer on 5.8.2019 at 10 AM and remained present till 8.00 PM. On 6.8.2019 also she was present and underwent the cross-examination till 8.00 PM. The cross- examination by the charged officer through the defence assistant went on for two days. It was stated by her that, in the above circumstances, further cross-examination for the third day would be difficult due to her ill-health and that she had to attend an important function in the school on 10.8.2019. Accordingly, it seems that the inquiry authority granted time to wind up the cross-examination and it was actually wound up only at 8.30 PM on 7.8.2019.

30. Annexure A9 the inquiry proceedings and inquiry report further disclose another fact. At every stage, objections were raised by the defence assistant and after hearing both sides in extenso, lengthy orders were passed by the inquiry officer. Annexure A9 discloses that regarding questions Nos. 11, 18, 20, 24 put to SW-14 the Principal, objections were raised by the applicant through his defence assistant and after hearing both sides the inquiry officer had passed separate orders. Regarding question No. 11, the presenting officer raised an objection that same question was being repeatedly asked to the witness though she had given answer properly. Question No. 18, related to a complaint submitted by the parents regarding the alleged poor teaching skills of the applicant. Though all the 21 parents had affixed their signature, it did not bear the signature of the witness, the Principal. An objection was raised by the applicant that since this fact was admitted by SW-14, all the 21 parents who had signed the complaint will have to be examined. This is an absolutely irrelevant and unwarranted objection, since it is quite clear that a recipient of a complaint need not always affix his signature on the complaint acknowledging the receipt of it. Further, a complaint or a communication can be marked either through the recipient or through the person who had issued it. The Principal had admitted the receipt of it. In the present case, the former option was taken which was legally admissible. Hence, the request made by the applicant to examine all the 21 parents was mischievous and intended to harass them and was rightly declined by the inquiry authority. Clearly, most of the objections raised by the applicant were absolutely frivolous, mischievous or with motives. Most of the objections had no legal backing and unsustainable in law.

31. The above facts coupled with the demand of the applicant to summon additional 148 documents which included registers, voluminous documents, etc. demand for forwarding a disputed document to handwriting experts, demand for summon 21 students for examination cumulatively indicate that the applicant was dragging the proceedings, unnecessarily harassing the witnesses and protracting the inquiry. At the same time, he complained that the inquiry was being prolonged. In the above circumstances, there is absolutely no justification in the conduct of the applicant. He has also not come up with any valid excuse as to why he voluntarily left the inquiry on 7.8.2019 without signing the deposition. The allegations raised against him in the reply statement has not been denied by filing a rejoinder. In the above circumstances, it is only proper to hold that the applicant voluntarily refused to participate in the inquiry thereafter, for reasons best known to him.

32. It is an admitted case of the applicant that after 7.8.2019 he received a communication dated 14.8.2019 through email from the inquiry officer directing him to place his written brief before 26.8.2019. The contention of the applicant was that, it was in violation of Rule 14(16) of the CCS (CCA) Rules since it provides that after the closure of the case of the disciplinary inquiry, Government servant shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing. Under Rule 14(17) of the CCS (CCA) Rules the witness of Government servant should be examined, cross-examined and re-examined and only thereafter provision under Rule 14(19) of CCS (CCA) Rules that the inquiry officer, after completion of the evidence, hear the presenting officer and the Government servant and permit him to file the written briefs. The learned counsel further contended that under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the inquiry authority, after the Government servant closes his case shall if the Government servant has not examined himself generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It was contended that it was a very valuable opportunity given to the Government servant/delinquent to establish his defence and to answer the materials available on record against him. It was contended that all the above provisions were violated by the respondents.

33. It is pertinent to note that the applicant and his defence assistant voluntarily left the inquiry on 7.8.2019 without affixing the signature on the deposition papers. They did not co-operate with the inquiry thereafter. No further request was made for enabling them to examine themselves. Even the communication of the respondents dated 14.8.2019 to submit the written brief was not responded. They could have raised all the objections in the written brief. In the above circumstances, it is only to be held that the applicant had voluntarily abandoned the inquiry and did not avail the opportunity offered thereafter. He also did not respond to communication dated 14.8.2019 directing him to place on record his written statement. He did not demand for any further opportunity. Thereafter, he cannot now turn around and allege violation of principles of natural justice as well as Rule 14(16) to Rule 14(19) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

34. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that even if the employee is declared exparte it was mandatory on the part of the inquiry authority to give an opportunity to the applicant, and not to dispense with the requirement under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules. It was contended that even if the employee remained absent, still an opportunity was liable to be given to the applicant to participate in the inquiry. To supplement this, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ministry of Finance & Anr. v. S.B. Ramesh [(1998) 3 SCC 227]. In that, the contention of the employer was that the inquiry itself was held exparte as the employee did not appear nor respond to the notice and hence, it was not possible for the inquiry authority to question the applicant. Rejecting it, Supreme Court held that even if the inquiry officer had set the applicant exparte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the inquiry or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine, the witnesses in support of the charge, he should be given an opportunity to appear and then proceed under Rule 14(18) of CCS (CCA) Rules.

35. It is true that no such procedure was adopted in this case. However, it was not a case where the applicant remained exparte from the initial stage. He appeared, contested and thereafter abandoned it. Even thereafter, he was called upon to submit his written brief. He could have very well sought for examination of his own witnesses and offered himself to continue in the inquiry. In fact, he did not even respond to the communication dated 14.9.2019 calling upon him to submit his written brief. Hence, it must be deemed that he has voluntarily refused to co- operate with the inquiry. Above points are answered accordingly.

36. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the penalty imposed on him was totally disproportionate to the allegations established against him. By Annexure A15 a penalty of reduction of pay by five stages with cumulative effect for a period of 5 years was imposed on him. It is pertinent to note that the allegations against him are very serious. The charges included inflicting corporal punishment on three students. It was also alleged that he had committed various irregularities in discharge of his function as a teacher, including using of unparliamentary language. All the allegations stood proved. In the nature of the proved allegations, we feel that the penalty imposed on him was not at all disproportionate.

37. Assailing Annexure A16 the order by which the applicant was transferred from JNV, Kozhikode to JNV, Sangli, it was contended that it amounted to double jeopardy. The applicant was found to be guilty and a penalty was imposed on him. He was also transferred to another school. Definitely transfer by itself is not punitive in nature. There is nothing on record also to show that it was consequent to the disciplinary proceedings that he was transferred. Hence, it cannot be said that Annexure A16 is vitiated.

38. On an evaluation of the entire facts we find no reason to interfere in the inquiry report, the penalty imposed, the transfer order or to hold that the inquiry was vitiated in any manner. Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

“SA”

Original Application No. 180/00613/2019

APPLICANT’S ANNEXURES Annexure A1 – True photocopy of the memorandum of charges No. PF No. PCH/5-81/NVS(HR)/2012/6811 dated 8.3.2012 issued to the applicant.

Annexure A2 – True photocopy of the order No. PF No. PCH/S- 81/NVS(HR)/Estt.II/2017 dated 6.12.2017.

Annexure A3 – True photocopy of the interim or der dated 13.12.2017 in OA No. 180/01049/2017 of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

Annexure A4 – True photocopy of the memo of charges No. P.F. No. PCH/5-81/NVS(HR)/Estt.II/2017/3944 dated 21.2.2018.

Annexure A5 – True photocopy of the order dated 13.6.2018 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 180/452/2018.

Annexure A6 – True photocopy of the order in MA No. 180/1368/2018 in OA No. 180/452/2018 dated 22.1.2019.

Annexure A7 – True photocopy of the communication No. PER- NVS/2019(Estt.III)/10967-68 dated 20.6.2019 issued by the Joint Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner.

Annexure A8 – True photocopy of the order dated 28.6.2019 in MA No. 180/321/2019 in OA No. 180/452/2018.

Annexure A9 – True photocopy of the daily order sheet No. 15 dated 6.8.2019 of the enquiry proceedings.

Annexure A10 – True photocopy of the communication dated 14.8.2019 issued by the 4th respondent inquiry officer to the applicant.

Annexure A11 – True photocopy of the relevant extract of the written brief dated 16.8.2019.

Annexure A12 – True photocopy of the communication together with the list of additional witnesses dated 31.8.2017 submitted by the applicant before the 4th respondent.

Annexure A13 – True photocopy of the enquiry report dated 3.9.2019 submitted by the enquiry officer.

Annexure A14 – True photocopy of the covering letter PF. No. PCH/5- 81/NVS(HR)/(Estt.II)/2017/Case-2 dated 12.9.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.

Annexure A15 – True photocopy of the order PF No. PCH/5- 81/NVS(HR)/(Estt.II)/2017/Case-2/2074 dated 27.9.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.

Annexure A16 – True photocopy of the office order PF No. PCH/5- 81/NVS(HR)/(Estt.II)/2019/2073 dated 27.9.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.

Annexure A17 – True photocopy of the relieving order No. PCH/I- 6/JNV PK 2019-20/365 dated 9.10.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent.

RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES

Nil

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-