Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 169 (HP)

Ishwar Dass v. State of H. P.

2002-06-20

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, W.A.SHISHAK

body2002
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. 1. Facts of this case are by and large admitted as such those are being briefly noted for disposing of this writ petition. Petitioner is working as teacher in the Education Department of Himachal Pradesh Government. In the month of August, 2001 notification No. Shiksha-II-Ga(3)-l/2000 dated 25.8.2001 was issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Education Department thereby Government decided to grant State Award to as many as 8 teachers. Petitioner figures at Sr. No. 7 in it. 2. This was followed by issuance of telegram Annexure P-2 by the Education Department of the State Government to the Petitioner to report at Kala Kendar, Kullu on 4th September to receive State Award. News item was also published in 'The Tribune' dated 1st September, 2001. Director of Education Himachal Pradesh sent a communication extending heartiest congratulations to the Petitioner, vide Annexure P-4. Cards were distributed and Awards were to be bestowed by Dr. Suraj Bhan, His Execellency the Governor of Himachal Pradesh. 3. It appears that all of a sudden vide Annexure P-8, giving of the State Award to the Petitioner was with-held. As such he was asked not to report at Kala Kendar. 4. Annexure P-7 is a communication sent from the Office of Block Primary Education Officer, Lambagaon, District Kangra, on the subject; non-involvement in R/o Shri Iswar Dass Bhandari, JBT, GPS Jaisinghpur. This communication was sent in response to telephonic message from the Joint Director, Primary Education, H.P., Shimla to the said Block Primary Education Officer, Lambagaon. It was reported that the Petitioner is not involved in any criminal departmental case and that he has no case/inquiry pending against him and as per records held in his (BPEO's Office) he is a very honest teacher. 5. In the aforesaid background, this writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs: (i) That the Respondents be directed to grant State Award for his outstanding services in the field of education and taking special interest in teaching of students to the Petitioner as per the Notification of the Respondents No. Shiksha-II-Ga (3)-l/2000 dated 25.8.2001; (ii) The Respondents be directed to pay special damages to the Petitioner for the insult he has suffered because of the order withholding the Award to the Petitioner; and (iii) Any other writ order or direction this Hon'ble Court deems ju. and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be passed and the writ petition may please be allowed. 6. Respondents were put to notice. Reply was filed by Respondents No. l and 2. They disputed the right of the Petitioner to maintain the writ petition. According to them, there were complaints against the Petitioner regarding power theft and financial irregularity regarding drawl of leave Travel Concession. Though, he refunded /deposited the amount of leave Travel Concession along with interest. Keeping in view the nature of the honor to be bestowed upon the Petitioner, it was thought fit to get the matter looked into. Reason being that the act and conduct of the said awardees had to be exemplary and there should not be any iota of doubt in his selection as such. Respondents have further stated that keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, grant of Award was with-held and decision on it will be taken after enquiry which is likely to be completed within two months. Thereafter, Petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply of Respondents No. 1 and 2. He stated that there was no complaint against him regarding power theft. So far his having withdrawn money of leave Travel Concession, he in fact availed the same and went to the destinations, but department later on issued letters that the bus by which he undertook journey was not authorized or recognized by the Respondents. It is for this reason that he deposited the amount of leave Travel Concession. 7. Inquiry report has been received. It has been filed along with affidavit of Dr. Om Parkash Sharma, Director of Education, Himachal Pradesh. 8. On the aforesaid facts, Shri Barowalia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner forcefully urged that so far as his client is concerned nothing has been found against him even after inquiry got conducted through Dr. D.C. Katoch, O.S.D.(C). As such direction needs to be issued to the Respondents for the grant of State Award in terms of Annexure P-l. Because now there is no obstruction any whatsoever, either on facts or in law. Thus, he has prayed for allowing this writ petition. 9. All these pleas have been controverter by the learned Advocate General who stated, that inquiry report even if taken on its face value, does not exonerate the Petitioner. Thus, he has prayed for allowing this writ petition. 9. All these pleas have been controverter by the learned Advocate General who stated, that inquiry report even if taken on its face value, does not exonerate the Petitioner. According to him, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever in the present case. Reason being that even if nothing was found against him still a doubt having been created in the peculiar circumstances when certain allegations were made against him which without being gone into and then adjudicated upon, matter was amicably settled. Great emphasis was laid by him on Annexure RA attached with the affidavit of Director of Education dated 13.5.2000. 10. Coming to the inquiry report Annexure-RA (supra) it is manifestly clear that only looking into the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, matter appears to have been amicably settled by the Petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. This was no part of his (Inquiry Officer's) duty. He was bound to have looked into the allegations as well as materials produced before him and then should have determined the matter. Admittedly, this was not done. At least this is what emanates from the reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer. Adjudication by the Inquiry Officer assumes significance keeping in view the honor that would be bestowed upon the Petitioner on its basis. In case allegations were not either substantiated or proved according to law, then there will not be any justification to withhold the grant of Award. 11. After receipt of inquiry report how the matter has proceeded, learned Advocate General was not in a position to say anything. Records produced by him also does not suggest anything in that behalf. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is ordered that the State Government shall re-examine the whole matter regarding grant/refusal of the State Award to the Petitioner as a teacher on the basis of the contemporaneous official record available with it and lake a reasoned decision. This matter will be decided by the concerned Respondent by or before 31.8.2002. Respondent No. 1 shall file affidavit to that effect. Direction regarding time frame is preemptory. Records produced by the learned Advocate General have been returned to him in the Court.