KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN versus ARUN KUMAR MADHAVRAO SINDDHAYE AND ANR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
KENDRIY A VIDY ALA YA SANGA THAN 
A 
v. 
A RUN KUMAR MADHA VRAO SINDDHA YE AND ANR 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[G.P. MA THUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Termination of services-Physical Education Teacher on temporary' 
post-Complaint by students that he was giving them corporal punishment- C 
Forwarded by Principal of school to its Regional office which asked for a 
report along with original statements-For that purpose enquiry conducted 
wherein statements of students recorded and explanation asked for from 
teacher-Enquiry officer in his report recommending disciplinary action, but 
the Regional office ordering termination of services-High D 
Court holding termination as illegal-Correctness of Held-Enquiry was 
merely a preliminary or fact finding enquiry and not a formal full scale 
departmental 
enquiry 
where 
non-observance 
of prescribed 
procedure or a violation of principle of natural justice could vitiate it-No 
articles of charges were served nor students asked to depose on oath-
Termination of services was not by way of punishment but was in accordance E 
with terms and conditions mentioned in appointment order which empowered 
appointing authority to terminate services by one month's notice without 
assigning any reasons-ft was more so as the termination order was innocuous 
and did not cast any stigma. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311-Applicability of-Held -post F 
of teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is not a civil post within 
meaning of the Article and provisions thereof are not applicable in case of 
their termination from service. 
Respondent was appointed on a temporary post of Physical Education. G 
Teacher with the appellant school Father of one of the students complained 
that in spite of doctor's advice and written note of the class teacher, he forced 
his son to do and PT being unable to do so, was beaten. It was further alleged 
that this was not the only occasion when corporal punishment had been meted 
out to the students by the respondent. The Principal of the appellant school 
879 
II 
..... 
880 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
.. 
A forwarded the complaint to its Regional office whereupon be was asked to send 
a report along with original statements regarding the complaint. For that 
purpose an enquiry was conducted in which statements of students were 
recorded. The Principal had earlier asked for an explanation from the 
respondent which he had given. Statements of students were recorded in 
B 
presence of the respondent wherein he was allowed to put questions to them. 
Respondent was again asked to give his own statement, which he refused. The 
enquiry officer then submitted his opinion recommending disciplinary action 
against the respondent. However the Regional office of appellant terminated 
services of respondent. Respondent filed a suit for a declaration that 
• 
termination of his services was illegal on the ground that the inquiry had 
c recorded finding against him and was conducted behind his back; it was not 
a simple orde1· of termination of services but bad been passed by way of 
punishment, in violation of principles of natural justice. Trial Court dismissed 
the suit and first appeal therefrom to lower appellate court was also dismissed. 
However, the second appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by the 
D 
High Court and the suit was decreed. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the enquiry held against the respondent was 
not a disciplinary enquiry but was only in the nature of a preliminary or fact 
f 
finding enquiry. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD I. I. The nature of enquiry conducted against the respondent was 
merely a preliminary or fact finding enquiry and no formal full scale 
departmental enquiry had been conducted against the respondent. In fact, the 
enquiry officer had himself recommended that disciplinary action be taken 
F against the respondent. However, the authorities chose not to hold a 
disciplinary enquiry against the respondent and did not serve him with any 
article of charges or take any further steps in that regard. Instead they chose 
to exercise power under the terms and conditions of the appointment order. 
The termination order is wholly innocuous and does not cast any stigma upon 
the respondent nor it visits him with any evil consequences. 1892-C-El 
G 
1.2. The Principal was not an eye witness of the incident relating to 
'."°' 
respondent PT Master and also of the corpo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.