Sd MADAN GOPAL Assistant Commissioner The principal ground taken by the respondent in the suit instituted by him was that an enquiry had been companyducted 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 number a simple order of termination of services but had been passed by way of punishment, in companyplete violation of principles of natural justice.
G.V. Lucas and the Principal had promised to stop the mal practice as companyporal punishment was against the rules of the Central School.
The respondent Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye was appointed on a temporary post of Physical Education Teacher in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 25.6.1974.
The termination order does number indict the respondent for any misconduct.
For the purposes of sending the report an enquiry was companyducted in which statements of eight students including Master V.K. Srinivasalu were recorded.
One Capt.
The Principal had earlier asked for an explanation from the respondent vide his letter dated 26.2.1975 which he had given.
The relevant part of the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bombay Regional Office on 25.6.1974 reads as under No.
4 kms around the school.
The enquiry officer then submitted his opinion on 7.3.1975 and the same is being reproduced below OPINION OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER Based on the evidence adduced above, I am of the opinion that Shri SHIDE, PT Teacher, Central School, DEHU Road has meted out companyporal punishment to Master VK Srinivasalu, Student IX Std.
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 companypletion of the enquiry, in which he had number 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.
Balasubramanyam to the Regional office of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bombay on 25.2.1975.
I recommend that disciplinary action be taken against Shri Shide.
This may be treated as One Months Notice.
The services of the appointee are terminable by one months numberice on either side without any reasons being assigned therefor.
F.6 5/74/KVS BR Date 25th June, 1974 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT Offer of appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher.
Sd Enquiry Officer The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bombay Region thereafter passed the impugned order on 21.3.1975 by which the respondent was informed that his services were numberlonger required and the same shall stand terminated with effect from 30.4.1975.
The statement of the students was recorded in the presence of the respondent wherein he was allowed to put questions to them.
He filed a suit for a declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 21.3.1975 was illegal, inoperative and number binding upon him.
in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on an initially pay of 2.
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.
on 18 Feb. 75.
F.4 5/74/KVS BR dated 25.6.74 issued to Shri Siddhaye and the same duly accepted by him vide his letter dated 1.7.74.
The High Court accepted the plea of the employee that the order of termination of services was founded on the allegations of misconduct and the ex parte equiry report and accordingly quashed the termination order.
The suit was defended by the appellant on several grounds and the principal ground being that the services of the petitioner had number been terminated by way of punishment, but in terms of the appointment order.
His services were terminated on 23.9.1980.
His services were terminated vide order dated 21.3.1975 in accordance with companyditions of appointment mentioned in the appointment order.
The appointing authority, however, reserves the right of terminating the services before the expiry of the stipulated period of numberice by making payment to the appointee of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of numberice or the unexpired portion thereof.
The termination order was challenged on the ground that certain allegations of misconduct had been made against him regarding which an ex parte inquiry was held wherein he was number given any opportunity of hearing.
The second appeal preferred by the respondent was, however, allowed by the High Court and the suit was decreed as mentioned earlier.
I further feel that he has been indulging in the practice of meting out companyporal punishment to students from time to time with varying degrees of severity.
V.K. Balasubramanyam sent a letter to the Station Commander, Dehu Road on 21.2.1975 stating that his son Master 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 number well, the PT teacher made him to run six rounds approx.
With reference to his her application for the above post, the undersigned offers to Shri Arunkumar Madhavrao Siddhaye, a temporary post of Physical Education Tr.
It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the relevant facts in this regard.
It was further mentioned in the letter that this was number the only occasion when companyporal punishment had been meted out to the students by the respondent as earlier also this fact had been brought to the numberice of the executive companymittee of the school by Lt.
If he she accepts the offer on the terms and companyditions stipulated, he she may please send his her acceptance to the undersigned within 7 days from the receipt of this letter in the form attached and report for duty to the Principal of the above mentioned Kendriya Vidyalaya 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 Shri Arunkumar Madhavrao Siddhaye, PHT, KV, Dehu Road is hereby informed that his services are numberlonger required by the Sangathan with effect from 30.4.75 N. His services will therefore stand terminated with effect from the above date as per terms and companyditions of appointment mentioned in the offer of appointment No.
This was shown to the class teacher who gave a numbere in writing to the PT teacher exempting the child from PT and other exercises.
As the child was number 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 number do P.T. or other exercises for a week.
The Principal of the school forwarded the companyplaint of Capt.
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.
Before adverting to the submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties, it will be companyvenient to set out the essential facts of the case and the findings recorded by the High Court.
Furthermore it has been indicated by the case itself that the order of termination of service was after initiation of the enquiry in which articles of imputation and charge were served on the appellant and some witnesses were examined.
He was again asked to give his own statement, which he refused to give.
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 companyplaint of beating to the students by the respondent.
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.
P. MATHUR, J. 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.
In spite of doctors advice and written numbere of the class teacher, the PT teacher forced the boy to do PT and being unable to do so, he was beaten.
