(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) The petitioner was working as a Physical Education Teacher appointed by Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samiti and was initially posted in the year 1992 at Dhrangadhra. Thereafter, he came to be posted outside Gujarat at different places and later on, he came to be posted at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Gujarat from 14/09/2004 and joined duties at JNV, Kheradi, near Dahod in Panchmahal District around 08/11/2004.
1.1 Pursuant to certain complaints of sexual harassment the petitioner was placed under suspension and his headquarter was changed at Latur in Maharashtra. Thereafter, he was called upon to appear before Summary Trial Inquiry Committee at Delhi, which found him guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. He, ultimately, came to be dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner requested for copy of the report of the Summary Trial Inquiry Committee which was not supplied to him and he ultimately, therefore, challenged the order before Central Administrative Tribunal at Ahmedabad by preferring Original Application No.433 of 2009. The Tribunal dismissed the original application on the ground that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative statutory remedy of departmental appeal.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, present petition is preferred.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Rao for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner was never supplied the copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee and in absence of that report, petitioner would not be in a position to prefer an appeal as contemplated under the law. Mr.Rao submitted that this aspect was specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal and still, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. The petitioner is thus rendered remedyless.
4.1 Mr.Rao submitted further that since the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee, he sought for the same under the RTI Act, which is also denied by the respondent authority. He has also drawn our attention to earlier orders of the Tribunal where the Tribunal had observed that for appropriate disposal of the Original Application, the order of the Summary Trial Inquiry Committee is essential and still, the impugned order has been passed.
5. In our view, it is true that the petitioner must exhaust a statutory remedy of appeal available to him before approaching the Tribunal, but he can avail of that remedy only if he knows what were the findings and what was the material considered by the Summary Trial Inquiry Committee and unless it is supplied to him, he would not be in a position to exercise his statutory right. This aspect is overlooked both by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Tribunal. In our view, without going into merits we can dispose of this petition by directing the appellate authority to supply a copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee to the petitioner to enable him to prefer an appeal; while not disturbing the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner must exhaust that remedy first. We order accordingly. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner could not have and could not avail of the statutory remedy available to him because of the non-supply of copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee, we would expect appellate authority not to be technical on question of limitation provided for preferring appeal. The period, during which the petitioner was pursuing other remedies to obtain copy of the report of Summary Trial Inquiry Committee, has to be taken into account while considering the condonation of delay caused in preferring appeal.
(A L DAVE, J.) (A J DESAI, J.) sompura Top