2013 (4) TMI 840 - SC - Indian Laws

Misappropriation/embezzlement by Headmaster of the school- Held that - In the instant case, there is no allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement or any charge which may cast a doubt upon the integrity of the appellant, or further, anything which may indicate even the slightest moral turpitude on the part of the appellant. The charges relate to accounts and to the discharge of his functions as the Headmaster of the school. The appellant has provided satisfactory explanation for each of the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, he has retired in the year 2002. The question of holding any fresh enquiry on such vague charges is therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for. The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, had filed an affidavit before the High Court, wherein it was stated that a dispute had arisen between the trustees, and in view thereof, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The respondents terminated the services of the appellant and many other employees, as a large number of cases had been filed against the Management Committee without impleading the State of Maharashtra, though the same was a necessary party, as the school was a government-aided school. Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules 1981, which prescribe the procedure of holding an enquiry have been violated. The charges levelled against the appellant were entirely vague, irrelevant and unspecific. As per statutory rules, the appellant was not allowed to be represented by another employee. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Rule 57(1) of the Rules 1981 stood violated. No chargesheet containing the statement of allegations was ever served. As the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have examined all the charges on merit and also found that the enquiry has not been conducted as per the Rules 1981, it was not the cause of the Management Committee which had been prejudiced, rather it had been the other way around. In such a fact-situation, it was not necessary for the Division Bench to permit the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry on the said charges and that too, after more than a decade of the retirement of the appellant. Appeal succeeds and is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the employer is entitled to hold the enquiry afresh from the point it stood vitiated if the punishment is set aside by the Court/Tribunal due to technical reasons.
2. Whether the enquiry can be quashed on the ground of delay.
3. Whether the enquiry can be permitted to be held on vague and unspecified charges.
4. Under what circumstances an enquiry can be conducted against a delinquent employee who has retired on reaching the age of superannuation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fresh Enquiry Post Vitiation of Punishment:
The court emphasized that if an order of punishment is set aside due to improper conduct of the enquiry, the employer should be allowed to conduct a fresh enquiry from the point it stood vitiated, depending on the gravity of the delinquency involved. The court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. This principle is supported by precedents such as *Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar* and others.

2. Enquiry Quashed Due to Delay:
The court held that generally, a departmental enquiry should not be set aside or charges quashed solely on the ground of delay, as this exceeds the power of judicial review. The seriousness and magnitude of the charges must be considered, and the court must weigh all relevant facts to determine if terminating the proceedings on the ground of delay is justified. Relevant cases include *State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma* and others.

3. Enquiry on Vague Charges:
An enquiry cannot be held on vague charges as they do not provide a clear picture to the delinquent for an effective defense. Charges must be specific, definite, and clear, as held in *Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal*. If the chargesheet is accompanied by a statement of facts, the charges must be crystal clear from the statement. Any enquiry conducted on vague charges stands vitiated. This principle is further supported by cases like *State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao* and others.

4. Enquiry Against Retired Employee:
The competence to hold an enquiry against a retired employee depends on the statutory rules governing their service conditions. Generally, if the enquiry was initiated while the employee was in service, it may continue post-retirement, but the nature of punishment would change. The punishment of dismissal/removal from service cannot be imposed post-retirement. This principle is supported by cases such as *NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA* and others.

Charges and Tribunal Findings:
The Tribunal examined the charges against the appellant, including failure to submit reports, non-attendance at meetings, and not forwarding proposals for approval. It found that the charges were vague, unspecific, and not proved. The enquiry was conducted with malafide intentions, and the procedure prescribed under Rules 36 and 37 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Rules, 1981, was not followed. The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was not conducted as per the rules and quashed the termination order.

Division Bench's Error:
The Division Bench erred in giving liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry after more than a decade of the appellant's retirement. The court noted that no statutory rule permits the management to hold a fresh enquiry post-retirement. The charges were vague, and the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the rules. The Division Bench's conclusion that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge should not have recorded findings on merit is not sustainable in law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were modified. The appellant was entitled to recover all his salary and retirement dues, if not already paid. The court emphasized that it is not permissible to hold a fresh enquiry on vague charges, particularly after the appellant's retirement. The appeal succeeded, and no costs were imposed.

← Previous Next →