S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5455/2009. Case: Anil Kumar Shukla Vs National Council for Teachers Education and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
|Case Number:||S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5455/2009|
|Party Name:||Anil Kumar Shukla Vs National Council for Teachers Education and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Saransh Saini, Adv. and For Respondents: Virendra Lodha, Sr. Adv. and Shantanu Sharma, Adv.|
|Judges:||Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Article 226|
|Judgement Date:||February 03, 2017|
|Court:||Rajasthan High Court|
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
That the petitioner was given a memorandum of charge on 20/11/2008 issued by the Chairman of National Counsel for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred as "NCTE"). The suspension order was also passed on 19/3/2009 by the chairman of the NCTE. The dispute relating to the charge upon the petitioner was relating to a lease between the NCTE and landlord of House No. 1 (kha-8), Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur for 11 months commencing from 1/1/1998. The petitioner alongwith family members occupied the said house even after expiry of lease period as a tenant and the charge relating to occupation of the petitioner after expiry of the lease period was not in purview of misconduct under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred as (CCA Rules, 1965).
The NCTE took legal opinion and such opinion was that the petitioner was in the occupation of the said house in his personal capacity.
Wife of the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction impleading the petitioner-the landlord and NCTE as defendants. The petitioner was holding the post of Regional Director Northern Regional Committee NCTE, when he initially occupied the said premises. The suit filed by the petitioner's wife came to an end by virtue of the compromise between the parties.
The charge levelled against the petitioner was leading to the occupation of the said house unauthorisedly which came in the purview of misconduct so as to fail to maintain the integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee. The petitioner contravened the Rule (3) of the CCA Rules, 1965. The petitioner challenged the memorandum of 20/11/2008 as well as suspension order dated 19/3/2009.
The respondents filed the reply and took a preliminary objection that it was in the exceptional circumstances that a charge-sheet and show cause notice is interfered with.
In the reply, it was submitted that the landlord continuously approached the NCTE Office seeking the vacation of his house which was under occupation stating that the house in question has not been vacated by him despite the lapse of lease period. The matter was examined and a copy of the complaint(s) dated 13/7/2005 was forwarded by MHRD to the NCTE. The MHRD conducted Preliminary Enquiry into the matter and forwarded a letter dated 30/11/2006 directing the petitioner to vacate the house in question and directing the NCTE to initiate...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL