Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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

Similar News