9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing writ petition, termination of service, charges framed against appellant, contention regarding chargesheet vagueness, contention regarding non-furnishing of enquiry report, violation of principle of natural justice, dismissal during probation, grave misconduct warranting termination. Analysis: The appeal challenges the order dismissing the writ petition, confirming the termination of service based on charges framed against the appellant. The appellant was appointed as Head Master on probation, and his service was terminated following an inquiry. The appellant contended that the chargesheet was vague and no copy of the enquiry report was provided. However, the appellant participated in the disciplinary proceedings without raising these issues initially, leading to the estoppel of raising them later. The court found no substance in the claim that non-furnishing of the enquiry report violated the principle of natural justice, as the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from this omission. The judgment emphasized that the principles of natural justice are not rigid rules and must be proven to have caused prejudice for a violation claim to be valid. The appellant's failure to show how he was prejudiced by not receiving the enquiry report led to the dismissal of this contention. It was noted that the appellant had ample opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings and had participated without objection. As the appellant was terminated during probation, no additional opportunity needed to be provided, and the question of natural justice violation did not arise in this context. Given the appellant's role as Head Master, expected to set an example, the court considered the charges against him as serious misconduct warranting termination. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.
|
