Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Calcutta High Court Quashes Teacher’s Misconduct Charges, Orders Full Reinstatement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court at Calcutta, in its bench comprising The Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh and The Hon’ble Justice Subhendu Samanta, has quashed charges of misconduct against a primary school teacher and ordered his full reinstatement with back wages and benefits. The judgment, delivered on 16th October 2023, sets a precedent in cases involving allegations against government servants.

The case revolved around a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Mridha, who was a primary school teacher at Government Middle School, Krishna Nagar, Havelock. He was accused of outraging the modesty of a girl student in 2009. The disciplinary authority had imposed a major penalty of dismissal based on this accusation.

However, the pivotal point in the case was the petitioner’s acquittal in a criminal case, where a joint compromise petition had been filed by the victim and Mr. Mridha. This acquittal raised questions about the validity of the misconduct charges in the departmental proceeding.

The High Court’s judgment emphasized the lack of evidence to support the misconduct allegations. It stated, “There is not an iota of evidence on record that suggests misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The decision of the authorities is based on no evidence at all and no misconduct resulting in violation of the service rules has been substantiated against the petitioner.”

The court further pointed out that the victim’s statement was exonerative and did not support the allegations of misconduct. It also deemed the penalty imposed on the petitioner as disproportionate and without legal sanction.

In its ruling, the High Court stated, “The decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and the subsequent decisions of the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal and also the inquiry report on the basis of which the orders were passed suffer from the aforementioned laches and therefore, cannot be sustained.”

The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition, setting aside the inquiry report and all related orders, and directing the respondent authorities to reinstate Mr. Mridha in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 10,000 was awarded to the petitioner.

This significant judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of evidence and due process in departmental proceedings and underscores the principle that a judicial review is not an appeal but an examination of the decision-making process.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2023

Anil Kumar Mridha vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News