Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 209 (JHR)

Parul Roy v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-03-21

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the office order dated 4.9.2000 (Annexure 9) issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer. Chatra, whereby -while revoking the order of suspension minor punishment have been imposed by with-holding two increments with commutative effect, and withdrawal of authority of drawing and disbursing officer and entitlement of subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without holding regular departmental inquiry and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Petitioner joined service as Matric Trained teacher and subsequently posted a Headmistress in 1983. In 1993 she was transferred to Adarsh Madhya Vidyalaya, Tandwa. In 1995 petitioner was transferred and posted at Rajkiyakrit Madhya Vidyalaya, Baragon. While she was posted as Headmistress, she was also authorised to work as drawing and disbursing officer. Petitioners further cases that on 22.7.1999 respondent No. 3 sought certain explanation from the petitioner which was submitted by her in writing. However, by Office Order dated 4.10.1999 she was put under suspension with immediate effect. Subsequently memo of charge-sheet was served on the petitioner in response whereof she submitted her reply denying the charges levelled against her. She thereafter, filed representation to the respondent-authority for taking necessary decision. Ultimately impugned order was served on her imposing certain punishment. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating inter alia that there are series of allegations against the petitioner on the basis of complaints made by the teachers. It is stated that after taking into consideration all the complaints made against the petitioner from different corners the petitioner was asked to submit explanation vide letter dated 23.7.1999. On the basis of the allegations and also her illegal absence from the school and financial irregularities she was put under suspension and her head quarter was fixed at Tandwa office. Thereafter, one Arjun Prasad. On the basis of the allegations and also her illegal absence from the school and financial irregularities she was put under suspension and her head quarter was fixed at Tandwa office. Thereafter, one Arjun Prasad. Area Education Officer, Simaria was appointed as inquiry officer to enquire into the allegation made against the petitioner, the Area Education Officer, Simaria vide letter dated 28.2.2000 informed respondent No. 3 that petitioner has not submitted any explanation to him and she has also not made over charge to the concerned teacher of the Middle School, Baragaon after the date of her suspension. On the aforesaid information respondent No. 3 himself requested the petitioner on 10.3.2000 to submit Register Panjee to the concerned acting Headmaster. Pursuant to that petitioner submitted few registers and promised to handover rest of the documents to the acting headmaster. 6. Inspite of promise made by the petitioner she did not submit all the registers and the documents. Respondent No. 3 then directed the Supervising Authority to visit office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Tandwa, petitioners headquarter and to enquire the charges levelled against her and to submit report. The Area Education Officer submitted his supervision report wherein it was stated that in spite of request made to the petitioner to co- operate in supervision, she remain absent. Respondents further stated that on the one hand the petitioner was demanding for her subsistence allowance and on the other hand, she has always been avoiding to make full charge to the acting Headmaster of the concerned School. The petitioner was given last chance by letter dated 23.5.2000 to submit acquittance roll, bill book, messenger book and cash book by 31.5.2000 but she in reply tot hat letter only submitted the photocopy of the acquittance roll and refused to submit any record which were demanded by the respondent No. 3. However, on receipt of the acquittance roll, bill for subsistence allowance of the petitioner was sent to the Treasury and the payment was made to the petitioner. Lastly it is stated in the counter- affidavit that petitioner always avoided the departmental and official guidelines and she did not co-operate with other teachers and several complaints were made against her. However, on receipt of the acquittance roll, bill for subsistence allowance of the petitioner was sent to the Treasury and the payment was made to the petitioner. Lastly it is stated in the counter- affidavit that petitioner always avoided the departmental and official guidelines and she did not co-operate with other teachers and several complaints were made against her. She was also asked to submit explanation as to why she being the drawing and disbursing officer always withdraw money in cash and used to deduct Rs.300/- from the salary of each teacher in ever month. 7. 1 have heard, Mr. Anand Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned JC to GPI 1. 8. From the rival contention of the parties, the only question falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of punishment is in violation of the principles of natural justice? 9. It has been categorically stated in the counter-affidavit that the teachers of the concerned school made written complaints against the petitioner that she always used to deduct an amount of Rs. 300/- per month as Misc, expenditure from the salary of each teacher. Teachers also alleged several activities done by the petitioner. The petitioner was then asked for explanation by letter dated 23.7.1999. The explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory. So on the basis of allegation of her illegal absence from the school and also financial irregularities she was suspended and her headquarter was fixed as Tandwa office of Block Extension Education Officer. Thereafter, the Area Education Officer, Simaria and Area Education Officer, Chatra were appointed to enquire into the allegation against the petitioner and petitioner was also asked to submit her show-cause, the Area Education Officer reported that the petitioner did not submit any explanation to him and she also did not handover charge to the concerned teacher of middle school after date of suspension. However, on much pursuation petitioner submitted some documents and registers and promised to submit rest of the registers on 14.3.2000. Petitioner was again requested to submit the rest of the registers specially the register which relates to subsistence allowance. However, on much pursuation petitioner submitted some documents and registers and promised to submit rest of the registers on 14.3.2000. Petitioner was again requested to submit the rest of the registers specially the register which relates to subsistence allowance. It further appears from the counter- affidavit that the authority appointed to enquire into the matter visited the office of the Block Educa- tion Extension Officer, Tandwa to enquire the charges levelled against the petitioner but the petitioner in spite of notice did not particiapte in the inquiry, consequently report was submitted by the authority. In order to controvert these statements made in the counter-affidavit petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit. So far written complaints made by the teachers is concerned, petitioner stated that the said complaint is a manufactured document just to harass the petitioner. In the rejoinder the petitioner had admitted that only those documents, necessary for functioning the school, was handed-over to the acting headmaster and some of the documents have been kept by the petitioner on the ground of apprehension that if those documents are handed-over to the concerned respondents, they will temper with the documents. Petitioner also admitted in rejoinder that he submitted her explanation and show-cause before the inquiring authority. It is, therefore, clear that before the impugned order was passed an inquiry was conducted by the two officers of the respondent and it was prima facie found that after the order of suspension passed against the petitioner she denied to handover charge to the acting headmaster and further she kept with her the necessary documents and registers and did not handover the same to the acting headmaster in Spite of repeated letters and reminders sent by the respondents. I am therefore, of the view that the impugned order of punishment passed by the respondent is not in violation of principles of natural justice. Punishment imposed on the petitioner is justified. 10. For the reasons aforesaid. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent. The instant writ application is therefore dismissed. 11. Application dismissed.