Supreme Court Intervenes in Termination Case, Orders Reinstatement for Retiring Teacher: Dr. T. Murugan vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (2018)

Date of the Judgment: January 31, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 70

Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Can a school employee be terminated without a proper inquiry, especially when another inquiry exonerates them? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case involving a school principal accused of sexual harassment. The Court examined the fairness of the inquiry process and the weight given to different inquiry reports. The bench comprised Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The appellant, Dr. T. Murugan, began his service as a teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya School on June 5, 1989. He was promoted to Vice-Principal in 1998 and then became Principal in 2001. On December 18, 2002, he was suspended following allegations of sexual harassment of a Class X student. A three-member committee conducted an inquiry, and based on their report, he was dismissed from service on June 13, 2003. The appellant challenged this termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT set aside the termination and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The High Court of Judicature at Madras reversed the CAT’s decision, upholding the termination. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with back wages, finding fault with the inquiry process. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras overturned the CAT’s decision, upholding the termination order. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case references the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which govern the conduct of inquiries against government employees. The Court noted that a regular inquiry under these rules was not conducted in this case. The court also invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which allows the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that his entry into the student’s premises was not with ill-intention but was in the company of a Chaukidar and only because he was informed that the student was not appearing for the examination.
• The appellant argued that he was not provided with a copy of the three-member committee’s report, denying him the opportunity to challenge it.
• The appellant pointed out that a magisterial inquiry had completely exonerated him.
• The appellant also raised concerns about the Deputy Director’s bias, stating that the Deputy Director’s wife was a teacher in another school under the same Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and that the Deputy Director had some motive against him.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent relied on the Deputy Director’s report and the three-member committee’s findings, which held the appellant guilty of sexual harassment.
• The respondent argued that the departmental inquiry was conducted fairly.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the Deputy Director was biased due to his wife’s employment in another school under the same management highlights the potential for conflicts of interest in internal inquiries.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the main issue was:

• Whether the termination of the appellant was justified given the procedural irregularities in the inquiry and the conflicting findings of different inquiries.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it considered the following:

• CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: The court noted that the regular inquiry under these rules was not followed.
• Article 142 of the Constitution of India: The court invoked this article to do complete justice and settle the dispute.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court noted that the regular inquiry under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was not followed, indicating a procedural lapse.
• The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and settle the dispute, demonstrating its willingness to use its constitutional powers to ensure fairness.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural lapses in the inquiry process and the fact that the appellant was due to retire soon. The Court also considered the fact that a magisterial inquiry had exonerated the appellant. The Court sought to balance the need for justice with the practicalities of the situation, given the appellant’s impending retirement. The Court’s decision was influenced by the desire to provide relief to the appellant while also respecting the dignity of all parties involved.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the procedural lapses in the departmental inquiry, the exoneration by the magisterial inquiry, and the appellant’s impending retirement. The Court’s decision was aimed at doing complete justice while respecting the rights of all parties involved.

The Court stated, “We do not think it necessary to refer to the factual matrix in detail.”

The Court also noted, “The appellant has a serious grievance that he was not served a copy of the report of the three-Member Committee and, therefore, he did not get an opportunity to challenge the same.”

Finally, the Court decided, “On the date of termination i.e. 13.06.2003, the appellant shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service.”

Key Takeaways

• Procedural fairness in departmental inquiries is crucial.
• Conflicting findings from different inquiries should be carefully considered.
• The Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice.
• The Court may consider the practicalities of the situation, such as an employee’s impending retirement, when deciding cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

1. On the date of termination, i.e., June 13, 2003, the appellant shall be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service.
2. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service for all purposes until June 13, 2003, and the benefits arising from such service shall be calculated and paid to him with simple interest at 6% per annum up to June 13, 2003, within three months.
3. The judgment under appeal and other impugned orders shall stand set aside.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court can use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice, especially when there are procedural lapses in departmental inquiries and when considering the practical aspects of a case, such as the impending retirement of an employee. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in departmental inquiries and the Court’s willingness to intervene to correct injustices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. T. Murugan vs. The Chairman Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti highlights the importance of fair inquiry processes and the Court’s willingness to use its powers to ensure justice. The Court set aside the termination order and deemed the appellant to have voluntarily retired, ensuring he received the benefits due to him. This case serves as a reminder that procedural fairness is essential in all disciplinary proceedings.