GOVT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORYOF DElHIOFFICE OF SECRETARY (EDUCATIONl/APPEllATE AUTHORITY

OLD SECRETARIAT, DElHI-ll0054

NoDE.7/261/S/TGT/NGV/Vig/2010/ 3" If- 310

ORDER

1. Whereas, Shri Ranjan Sharma, TGT (EngliSh), was Charge-sheeted for

major penally under Rule 14 of CCS (CCAI Rules, 1965 by the

Competent Authority vide Memorandum No. 2794/VIG. dated

18.02.20lion the lollowing articles of charge:-

Artic/e-f

Sh. Ranian Sharma, TGT (EngliSh) was working in GBSSS, Chirog Delhi,

New Delhi. He disobeyed each and every order of HOS and provoking

other stoff members. Thus he has violated Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct)

Rules, 1964which unbecoming of a government servant.

Article-II

Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT (English) was working in GBSSS,Chirag Delhi,

New Delhi. He did not take classes lOth,9th & 6th and not maintaining

class register of V/-A as well as teacher diary. Thushe has violated Rule

3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964which unbecoming of a government

servant.

Article-III

Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT(English) was working in GBSSS,Chirag Delhi,

New Delhi, a complaint mode by father of Vikront, student of class IX-A

against Mr. Ranjan Sharma regarding corporal punishment to his son.

Thus he has violated Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which is

unbecoming of a government servanf.

PagelofB

Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT (English) was working in GBSSS,Chirog Delhi,

New Delhi. HOS has complained that he refused to hand over the

examination charge and also locked two rooms of the school building

without permission. Thus he has violated Rule 3 of CCS'(Conduct) Rules,

1964 which unbecoming of a government servant.

Arlicle-V

Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT (English) was working in GBSSS,Chirag Delhi,

New Delhi. HOS has complained that Sh. Sharma has made theft of

teacher's attendance register for the months of June and July, 2010

along with other important documents. Thushe has violated Rule 3 of

CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which unbecoming of a government

servant.

2. AND WHEREAS,on denial of charges by Shri Ranjan Sharma, TGT

(English) vide representation dated 03.03.2011, Dr. Shamshad Ali,

Principal, GBSSS,Noor Nagar, Okhlo. New Delhi-25 and ShriAtul Kumar

Srivastava, Gr.III(DASS)/UDCwere appointed as Inquiry Officer (10) and

Presenting Officer(PO) vide order dated 29.03.2011 respectively.

3. AND WHEREAS,the Inquiring Authority submitted his report dated

11.06.2012 in the case, he concluded' that all article of charges as

proved, against Shri Ranjan Sharma, TGT [English). ,His findings are

reproduced below:

"The statement of 01/present witnesses were recorded and examinedby PO but the charged officer Sh.Ranjan Sharma did not appear evenon the last day of hearing held on 29/0 J /20 1 J therefore the inquiry washeld EX-Parle.

The records/documents and witnesses were examined to come to avalid conclusion. The findings of the inquiry are as under:

Page 2 of 8

Sh. Lakhan Lal, Principal (the then Vice Principal) Govt. BSSS,ChiragDelhi, New Delhi-I 7 submitted the statement of prosecution witness inthe inquiry proceedings confirming all the facts and contents qf thememorandum / letters issued to Sh. Ranjan Sharma. In the light ofwritten and oral statements of prosecution witness, thoroughexamination of statements reveals that the articles of charges /, II, IV &V framed against Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT(Eng.) stand established.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that the prosecution was quitesuccessful in proving the Articles of Charges t II IV & V against thecharged officer Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT(Eng.)

Master Vikrant, the then student of IX A and his father Sh. Ashok Kumarwere called as prosecution witness regarding allegation of corporalpunishment, use of abusive language, 'physical assault and passingcastiest remark as "CHAMAR" by Sh. Ranjan Sharma. Master Vikrant inhis written statement stated that a criminal case / FIRNo. 339/20' , U/s3 (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act 1989) & 23 JuvenileJustice Act 2000 was registered against CO at PSHaUl Khas South Delhiand subsequent criminal investigation ison progress.

Therefore, Article No. III has been proved well by t~e prosecutionagainst CO Sh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT(Eng).

After. perusal of statements given by prosecution witness, consideringstatements of articles of charges framed along with annexures, and allother documents placed in the file, I am of the considered view thatArticles of charges No. I to V (all charges) have been proved againstSh. Ranjan Sharma, TGT (Eng.) Charge Officer and articles of chargesframed against him stand established.

After taking into consideration, the Charge-Memo along with itsannexures, deposition of witnesses and all other documents placed inthe file, I am of the considered view that Articles of Charge No. I to Vstand Proved against Shri Ranjan Sharma."

4. AND WHEREAS, the copy of the inquiry report dated 11.06.2012 was

served upon the CO vide Memorandum dated 17.10.2012. The CO

submitted his comme,nts on the same vide his reply dated 18.11.2012.

5. AND WHEREAS. the Director (Education),. being the Disciplinary

Authority, vide order No. NoDE.7 /261 /S/TGT/NGV /Vig/HQ/2010/4503-09

dated 08.03.2013, imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with

Page 3 of 8

immediate effect upon the CO. Shri Ranjan Sharma. TGT (English).

Further. it was also ardered that ShriRanjan Sharma. TGT(English)will be

entitled for two-thirds of gratuity and' compensation pension only,

admissible to him on the date of hiscompulsory retirement.

6. AND WHEREAS. aggrieved with the aforesaid penalty order dated

08.03.2013. Shri Ranjan Sharma. TGT (Eng). filed an appeal dated

18.04.2013 before the undersigned. being the Appellate Authority. The

main contentions raised by the appellant in his appeal are briefly

summarised below-

(i) That the Director of Education did not decide his

representation against the 10 in time and inquiry was

conducted during the pendency of the disposal of his

representation and there_aftera penalty was imposed.-

That the disciplinary proceedings were started against him

as he has made complaints against the erring Head of

School and other officers.

That no listed documents as per Annexure-III of charge-

sheet were provided to him and also the preliminary

enquiry report and notice for attending the inquiry was not·

given to him.

The 10 included the name of Shri Kartar Singh as

prosecution witness without any power and authority. The

CO had made a representation to the Director of

Education in thisregard.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Therefore, the prayer of the appellant is that he is being

victimised as he dared 10 expose the illegal acts of HOSSh.

Lakhan Lal and his associate teachers being committed in

collusion with DDE District South and prayed that the

"Page a of a

impugned order be quashed and he should be reinstated

in service.

7. AND WHEREAS,Shri Ranjan Sharma filed an OA Na.1761/2016 in the

Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), explaining various

grounds and facts and seeking relief. The Han'ble CAT vide its order

dated 23.05.2016 disposed off the said OA with the direction to

Appellate Authority to decide the appeal dated 18.04.2013filed by the

CO, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the

dale of receipt of certified copy of the order.

8. AND WHEREAS,I have gone through the records adduced before me..

including the Inquiry Report, as well as the appeal petition of the

oppellcnt. Theappellant wos given an opportunity of personal hearing

an 09.08.2016 but he did not attend the same. The appellant,

however, vide letter dated 11,08.2016 requested for a personal

hearing. Keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, a personal

hearing was given to him on 26.09.2016in which he' reiterated the

contentions mentioned in his appeal petition. He further requested

that the contentions raised by him in his O.A. No. 1761/2016 (before

CAT) at S.NAA to 4.33 and grounds at S.N.5.1 to 5.13 be also

considered. He also submitted that the inquiry was conducted ex-

porte and the charge-sheet was issued by the Deputy Director of

Education (DDE).who was not the competent authority in his case.

Theappellant also submitted a CD purporting to show that ShriLakhan

Lal, the then Head of School himselfused to give corporal punishment.

9. AND WHEREAS,as regard the contention at S.N. (i) it is.observed that

the appellant had submitted a representation dated 12.10.2011

requesting for an opportunity to inspect the record and to change the

10 as well as to initiate disciplinary proceedings against 10. The said

Page 5 of 8

representation was placed before the Director of Education on

24.10.2011and DDE (South) was directed to provide the documents

demonded by the CO, if admissible. It is , therefore, not correct to say

that the said representation was not considered by the Director of

Education.

10.AND WHEREAS,as regards the appellant's contention at S.N. [ii}. it is

observed that the D.P in this case was started only after getting

complaint from the parent of the student and the ·then HaS. A

preliminary enquiry was conducted after which it was decided to

initiate the DPagainst the appellant. On perusal of the appeal memo,

it appears that the appellant from time to time has been making

complaints against hisHOS,DOEetc. Since the DPwas initiated on the

basis of a specific complaint for which on FIRwas also lodged and a

complaint to National Commission for Scheduled Casteswas also filed

by the complainant. in my view the contention at S.N.(ii) is merely

based on conjecture and surmisesand deservesto be rejected.

11. AND WHEREAS,as far as contention at S.No. (iii) is concerned, ample

opportunities were provided to the CO by 10 to inspect the listed

documents and a set of the same was also forwarded to him by the 10

vide letter dated 28.05.2012. Therefore his contention at S.No. (iii) also

does not hold water.

12.AND WHEREAS,regarding the contention at S.N. (iv), on perusal of the

record it is seen that the name of ShriKarter Singh isneither included in

the charge-sheet nor was his statement recoroeo by the 10, although

the 10 did admilted vide his letter dated 02.05.2012to the Director of

Education that a notice was issued to ShriKartar Singh inadvertently.

This issue was also communicated to the CO vide order dated

22.08.2012. Therefore no injusticewas caused on thisaccount.

Page e of a

13.AND WHEREAS, as far as the contention and facts mentioned in the

aforesaid OA are concerned. it is pertinent to mention here that as per

order dated 23.05.2016 of Hon'ble CAT [received on 06.06.2016). the

only direction given was to decide the oppeal dated 08.03.2013. As

such the contention raised by him in the aforesaid OA, being not a part

of hisappeal petltlon dated' 18.04.2013, need not be considered while

deciding this appeal. However, in the interest of justice, the issues

raised by him during the hearing which were not part of hisappeal are

also hereby considered. Regarding Ex-parte proceedings, it is on

record that the 10 provided sufficient opportunities to the CO to attend

the hearings as isevident from the notices issuedby 10to CO on dated

05.08.2011 and 27.08.2011, which were served to him in person and

finally a notice dated 28.05.2012 was.also served to him informing that

failure on his part to appear before the 10. will lead to ex-parte

proceecincs. But the CO ·neverattended the hearings nor did he give

any reasons for the same. The Disciplinary Authority, Director

(Education) has dealt with the issue jn detail in his order dated

08.03.2013. As for as the issueof charge sheet by the DDEin the case is

concerned. as per the existing Recruitment Rulesfor the post of TGT

[English), the post of TGT[EngliSh)is a Group 'C' post for which DDEis .

competent to issuecharge-sheet for major penalty as per provision of

Rule 13 of CCS [CCA) Rules, 1965. As regards the CD submitted by CO

during the personalhearing on 26.09.2016 isconcerned, the 'Sameisnot

relevant to this appeal and is being sent to Director (Education) for

appropriate action.

14.AND WHEREAS, in view or above discussions, it is clear that the

Disciplinary Authority has acted in accordance with the provisionsof

law. I am. therefore, of the opinion that the contentions raised by the

appellant in hisappeal. are devoid of merit. However, in view of the

Page 7 of 8

fact that the case has been going on for more than five years, I take a

liberal view and modify the impugned order to the extent that the

penalty of only "Compulsory Retirement' shall be imposed upon Shri

Ranjan Sharma, Ex-TGT[English) and that he would be entitled to get

entire gratuity and pension as admissible as per rules.

Ordered accordingly.

P~Ll7f'~,~(PUNYA SAlllA SRIVASTAVA)

SECRETARY (EDUCATION)/APPEllATE AUTHORITY

Shri Ranjan Sharma, Ex~TGT (English),GBSSS,ChiragDelhi,Delhi(Through DDE (South)

NoDE.? /261 /S/TGT/NGV/Vig/201 0/ :? D 'i-: 31 0 Dated:

Copy for information and necessary action to:-1. TheDirector, Directorate of Education. Old Sectt., Delhi;2, The DDE (South), Directorate of Education, Delhi;3, The ADE (E-III),Directorate of Education, Old sectt.. Delhi;4, The HOS/DDO/PAO concerned through DDE [South):

V 5, OS (IT),Directorate of Education, Old Sectt.. Delhi;6. Guard File.

(A upta)DEPUTYDIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (VIG,)

Page 8 of 8