JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The petitioner has approached this court against the order dated 22.11.1990, by which he was removed from the service. This order was passed by respondent no.5, Dr. K.K. Jha, Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Silchar Region, Assam. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:-
(2) The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher on 16.8.84. On 22.7.1986, Shri S.P.Singh, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya addressed a letter to Dr.K.K. Jha, seeking his advice so as to place the petitioner under suspension because they were aggrieved by a lawyer’s notice sent to them at the behest of the petitioner and also for the reason that the petitioner applied for a staff quarter. Immediately thereafter on 24.7.86, the petitioner was put under suspension. On 26.8.86, the petitioner made representation challenging the competence of the principal to suspend the petitioner under Rule 10 of Ccs (CCA) Rules, 1965. On 10.9.1986, during the period of suspension, the petitioner was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Project Pushpak by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Silchar.
(3) On 25.9.1989, the petitioner was relieved by the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and the suspension order was revoked by the Principal. On being relieved by the Principal, the petitioner protested to the Kendriya Vidyalaya Project Pushpak, where he found to his utter dismay, that another teacher had already been posted in his place and she had already joined that post. The petitioner’in these circumstances could not join the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pushpak. On 7.10.86, the petitioner was asked to report to the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Silchar, who vide office order dated 7.10.86, modified the transfer order dated 10.9.86, and the petitioner was directed to be posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya Loktak, instead of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Pushpak.
(4) The petitioner submitted that his order of suspension was issued without there being any fault or lapse on his part. The petitioner was transferred during the period of his suspension and another teacher was posted and this was done only to harass the petitioner and his family. The petitioner and his family had to run from Silchar to Pushpak, and again from Pushpak to Silchar and thereafter to Loktak. It is alleged that transfers in this manner are never made among the teachers and such transfers are definitely not in the public interest.
(5) The petitioner and his family had to face a lot of mental torture, great physical inconvenience and economic hardships.
(6) On 2.2.1990, when respondent no.5, Dr. K.K. Jha who was biased against the petitioner became a full-fledged Assistant Commissioner of Silchar Region, he vide order dated 2.2.1990, suddenly placed the petitioner under suspension for no rhyme or reason on contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The said letter did not indicate as to why the petitioner has been placed under suspension and why the disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him? The petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 6.3,90. The charge sheet stated that during the school inspection, the petitioner disobeyed the order of the Principal of the school to attend the class on 2.2.1990. The charge sheet had been served by Dr. K.K. Jha, respondent no.5. Article 2 of the charge is that during the aforesaid period and while functioning at Vidyalaya, Dr. Dubey disobeyed the orders of Shri U.N. Singh, Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Imphal to attend the class on 2.2.90.
(7) It is alleged that the petitioner’s conduct of insubordination grossly violated Rule-1 (iii), C.C.S (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1965, rendering him liable to disciplinary action under Ccs (CCA) Rules, 1965, as extended to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. An enquiry was constituted and Dr. K.K Jha was appointed as the Disciplinary Authority and Mr. V.K. Gautam was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Both Mr. Jha and Mr. Gautam were inimically disposed towards the petitioner. In the Enquiry proceedings, punishment of removal was suggested and on the basis of that, the petitioner has been removed from service. The petitioner has challenged this impugned order on several grounds.
(8) The petitioner has alleged bias against the principal, respondent no.4 and against Dr. K.K. Jha, Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The petitioner submitted that because of his bias, the Principal, Shri S.P. Singh, addressed a letter dated 22.7.86 to Shri K.K. Jha seeking his advice for placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner submitted that he had been suspended because he had sent a lawyer’s notice and also applied for a staff quarter. The petitioner submits that there was no material against him when he was put under suspension on 25.7.86. There was no justification for suspending, charge-sheeting and/or removing the petitioner. The charges against him are totally devoid of any merit and have been levelled on entirely extraneous considerations.
(9) It is also stated that the bias of the respondents is manifest from the fact that Shri K.K. Jha was the Disciplinary Authority located at Silchar whereas Mr. V.K. Gautam, a close confident of Shri K.K. Jha who was staying about 1200 kilometres away in Tripura was appointed the Enquiry Officer. This was done for the first time in the history of the school. On the instructions of Shri K.K. Jha, the Enquiry Officer Shri V.K. Gautam had recommended the petitioner’s removal as expected.
(10) According to the petitioner, Dr. K.K. Jha was prejudiced and biased against him and he did not expect any justice from him. Therefore, he made a representation way back on 11.4.90 to the Assistant Commissioner for changing the Enquiry Officer in this case. The petitioner also requested that the Disciplinary Authority should also be changed. Despite that, nothing was done and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to complete the enquiry and rejected the representation of the petitioner on 12.4.1990.
(11) Another instance of the vindictive attitude of the respondents which has been mentioned in the petition is that on 25.4.90, when the petitioner was under suspension, according to the rules after three months, the suspension allowance ought to be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent but in the instant case, by the order dated 25.4.92, the subsistence allowance was decreased from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. This was done to harass and humiliate the petitioner.
(12) The petitioner has also urged that the vindictive attitude of the respondent is clearly manifest from the fact that the copy of the Enquiry Report has not been supplied to the petitioner till date. A copy of the Enquiry Report has to be supplied to the petitioner, particularly in a case where the Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry Officer are different persons and non- supply of the same is clearly violative of rule 17 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
(13) It is submitted by the petitioner that the Supreme Court in number of cases have categorically observed that a copy of the Enquiry report has to be supplied in a case where punishment of removal has been imposed on an employee. The petitioner submits that the Enquiry Report has not been given to him because there was no material whatsoever against him to substantiate the charges.
(14) According to clause 7 of the appointment letter, the Delhi Courts alone shall have jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning the service or any dispute arising out of the appointment letter. For that reason, this petition has been preferred in this Court.
(15) This court issued notice on the writ petition of the petitioner on 13.5.1995. In pursuance of the notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. In the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that on 22.7.1986, Mr. S.P. Singh Chakor, the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalaya addressed a letter to Mr. S.P. Dutta, Law Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, seeking his advice. It is submitted in the counter-affidavit that the first suspension was revoked on technical ground and submitted that the petitioner was transferred from Kendriya Vidyalaya Project Pushkar when the transfer orders were issued by the then Assistant Commissioner A.C. Mehta.
(16) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was asked to take primary classes because of exigencies of service and not with the intention to harass the petitioner.
(17) It is also alleged in the counter- affidavit that it is not necessary to give any show cause notice before imposing major penalty of removal. It is submitted that disobedience of the order of the superiors and of higher authorities amounts to gross misconduct as per the provisions of rule 3 (1) of the Ccs (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the petitioner deserves such a major penalty of removal from service.
(18) The petitioner has placed reliance on Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad v. B. Kamnakar, 1993(3) Scale 952. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in this case has arrived at a definite conclusion and finding that non supply of the copy of the report clearly contravenes the principles of reasonable opportunity enshrined under Article 311(2) and also violates the principles of natural justice. He also placed reliance on Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, . In this case, the Court observed that the delinquent officer is entitled to a copy of the report and non furnishing of report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice.
(19) He has also placed reliance on Nand Kishore Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, . In this case, it has been mentioned by the court that the order removing the delinquent from service should be a self- contained speaking order and not a cryptic one.
(20) The petitioner also placed reliance on Town Area Committee, Jalalabad vs. Jagdish Prasad and others, 1978( 2) Slr 113. In this case, the court held that if opportunity to cross-examine and to lead defense evidence is denied, in that event, the dismissal is wrongful being in violation of reasonable opportunity.
(21) He has also relied upon Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, . In this judgment, the Supreme Court while reiterating the earlier judgments observed that it is well settled that in Disciplinary Enquiry, the delinquent has a right to cross-examine witnesses examined on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and an opportunity to lead his own evidence and to present his side of the case. This is the minimum principle of natural justice which must inform disciplinary proceedings.
(22) He has also cited Khem Chand vs. The Union of India and others, 1958 Scr 1080. In this case also, the Supreme Court has held that according to Article 311(2), the delinquent must have a reasonable opportunity to show cause.
(23) I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for the respondents. I have also carefully seen the article of charges levelled against the petitioner. The main charge against the petitioner is that he disobeyed the orders of the Principal and did not attend the class on 2.2.90 and on this charge, he has been removed from the service.
(24) The copy of the Enquiry Report has not been given to the petitioner. During the course of the hearing in January, 1997, the matter has been adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the Union of India to produce the Enquiry report or its copy. The enquiry report has not yet been produced. Admittedly, a copy of the Enquiry report has not been given to the petitioner at any stage which is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice.
(25) The petitioner had clearly alleged bias against respondents 4 and 5 and he had in fact represented that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority be changed, but despite his strong protest, no action was taken on the request of the petitioner.
(26) During the period when the petitioner was under suspension, his suspension allowance was also decreased from 50 per cent to 25 per cent without any justifiable reasons, particularly when according to rules, after three months of suspension, the petitioner is entitled to 75 per cent allowance.
(27) As a matter of fact, as early as 11.4.1990, the petitioner made a written representation alleging bias against the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. No action whatsoever was taken. In cases where the petitioners have alleged definite bias against some officers and this is communicated well in advance, then in consonance with the principles of natural justice those allegations ought .to have been considered in proper perspective, particularly, when on the face of it there seems to be truth and substance in these allegations. Entrusting the enquiry to an officer who is admittedly biased, prejudiced and hostile to the petitioner on the face of it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice. This allegation is further substantiated by subsequent conduct of the Enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority. Some of the instances which clearly demonstrate bias of respondents no.4 and 5 are set out as under:- I.Despite the well settled position of law, a copy of the Enquiry Report has not been given in a case where the punishment of removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. II. After three months of suspension, the petitioner was entitled to increase in the suspension allowance from 50 to 75 per cent according to rules but in the instant case, the amount of suspension allowance has been reduced from 50 to 25 per cent. III. The Disciplinary Authority had appointed an Enquiry Officer who is alleged to be his own man and who (The Enquiry OfFicer) according to the petitioner, was likely to sign on dotted lines of the Disciplinary Authority. IV. The Enquiry Officer was working about 1200 kilometres away from the place where the Disciplinary Authority is located. This was done for the First time only to harass the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his harassment did not even end in Assam but here, after the petition was Filed and notice was issued on 13.5.91, and the respondents chose not to File reply in this matter, and the matter had to be adjourned from time to time, and ultimately on 18.3.93, the court issued Rule in this matter and in fact the counter was Filed on 12.12.94 after three and a half years of the petitioner’s filing this petition. V. Even with the counter-afFidavit, a copy of the Enquiry Report was not annexed and in January, 1997 when the matter came up for hearing, and during the course of hearing of this matter, adjournment was granted to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to produce a copy of the Enquiry Report. Despite the grant of opportunity, the Enquiry Report was not filed and the court was left with no option but to proceed to adjudicate the matter. VI. ‘ During the period when the petitioner was placed under suspension, he was transferred at the instance of respondents 4 & 5 from one place to another. These transfers were made primarily to harass and humiliate the petitioner and his family members. Such frequent transfers of a teacher, ordinarily cannot be construed as a part of administrative exigencies and in public interest. Such transfers which arc made primarily to harass an individual ultimately prove disastrous for the students and institutions because their teaching and instructions are frequently interrupted and the institution’s prestige and reputation are tarnished.
(28) This is a classic case where because of personal bias and prejudices, not only the petitioner and his family suffered, but also thousands of students and the institution had also suffered. If we properly comprehend the charge and the punishment imposed, it becomes abundantly clear that even if charge as framed and levelled against the petitioner is accepted in toto, even then, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is totally disproportionate. The punishment which was awarded by the respondents clearly substantiate the allegations of bias and prejudice levelled against by respondents 4 and 5.
(29) A large number of cases have come to the notice of this Court where because of small issues and petty problems all concerned, such as the institutions, the students, teachers and their families suffer adversely. In some cases it has been seen that very small problems when they are not promptly and appropriately tackled, lead to grave consequences.
(30) In the instant case, the teachers, students and institutions had to suffer for several years for a relatively small problem. Some of these small problems can be sorted out by good offices and mediation of senior officials. The problem in this case perhaps could have been solved by proper counselling and mediation of Senior officers. Since the problem was not tackled immediately in proper perspective, it has led to disastrous consequences. The petitioner who was a teacher in the far eastern region of India, Assam had to file this writ petition in this Court in the year 1991. The record of this case demonstrates that initially the petitioner had engaged a counsel in this matter and ultimately because of financial constraints the petitioner had to argue the matter in person. For almost six years the petitioner had virtually abandoned his family and stayed in Delhi to look after this case. The petitioner moved an application for early hearing and fortunately the same was allowed and his case was heard and decided out of turn in the year 1997. In case, the petitioner’s writ petition would not have been taken out of turn, in that event even before the first court he had to wait for several years more. The decision of this Court is also not likely to put an end to the controversy and if an appeal is filed and admitted by the Division Bench then again the petitioner will have to ‘.”ait for several years. The decision of the Division Bench may also perhaps not put an end to the litigation. The possibility of the aggrieved party moving the Supreme Court of India cannot be ruled out and if the petition is entertained by the apex court then again for several years the parties will have to wail before the appeal is taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court.
(31) For all these years the respondents have paid suspension allowance to the petitioner for doing no work. They may have to pay similar suspension allowance till the matter is finally determined and decided. The other consequences are that the students did not get any benefit of the teaching of the petitioner. The petitioner who is compelled to remain away from teaching for so many years will hardly be of any use as a teacher even if eventually he is permitted to teach.
(32) Therefore, this Court lakes this opportunity of impressing upon the Union of India, Director of Education and all concerned authorities that serious efforts must be made to resolve similar petty complaints and small problems by using the good offices of the senior officials. These complaints and small petty problems must be attended by the senior officials as promptly as possible to avoid disastrous consequences. I strongly recommend the Union of India and the Director of Education to consider the urgent necessity and requirement of appointing a small committee of senior officials to look into these problems and provide pragmatic solutions of the problem. This group or panel should be other than the education tribunal so that before the tribunal or the Court is called upon to look into the grievance, the aggrieved persons can approach the said group or panel so that their grievances may be adjudicated or resolved.
(33) Reverting to the fact of this case, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has been a victim of personal bias and prejudices of respondents No. 4 and 5.
(34) Consequently, the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from the service dated 22.11.1990 passed by respondent No. 5 is set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be entitled to the back wages and other consequential benefits.
(35) In the special facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is also entitled to the costs which is quantified as Rs.5,000.00 which shall be paid by the respondents within four weeks from today.
(36) Writ Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are accordingly allowed with costs.