Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1251 (RAJ)

Dharamveer v. State

2005-04-28

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By this writ petition, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 15.03.2001 passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner Zone, Churu and also the order dated 07.03.2003 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. The facts calling challenge to the orders impugned are as follows:- 2. The petitioner is working as senior Teacher, Science in the Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan. A memorandum under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was issued by Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu whereby the petitioner was directed to explain as to why the minor penalty be not imposed upon him as in the educational session of 1998-1999, the result in the subject of Science at the school where the petitioner was working remained to the extent of 25% i.e., below the prescribed standard. In response, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 31.01.2001 stating therein that the result was effected adversely in the educational session of 1998-1999 due to involvement of staff with literacy programme and for certain other reasons. The petitioner also stated that in educational session of 1998-1999, the principal of school permitted 18 students to appear in the concern examination though they were lacking the requisite attendance. The petitioner alongwith explanation, also annexed a certificate issued by the Principal of the school showing therein that in the educational session 1998-1999, the result of the entire school was below the standard laid down by the education department. 3. The Disciplinary Authority i.e., Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Churu by the order dated 15.03.2001 inflicted upon the petitioner a penalty of stopping of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.03.2001, preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958 before the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner by an order dated 07.03.2003 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner being barred by limitation. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the charge levelled against him under the memorandum dated 012.2000 does not constitute any misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner by an order dated 07.03.2003 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner being barred by limitation. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the charge levelled against him under the memorandum dated 012.2000 does not constitute any misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. The another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not a speaking and reasoned order, as Disciplinary Authority has not dealt with the explanation supported by a certificate issued by the Principal of school giving details with regard to result of the school in different educational sessions. 5. Per contra, while defending the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, it is urged by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the petitioner failed to achieve the successful results of teaching in educational session of 1998-1999, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and was rightly penalised. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that in the educational session of 1998-1999, result of the students of the school where the petitioner was teaching in the subject of Science remained below the standard settled by the Education Department. In memorandum dated 012.2000 issued by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Churu), it is nowhere stated that the result of the school in the specific subject remain below the standard settled by the Education Department due to slackness, carelessness or due to some act of commission or omission on the part of the petitioner. It is well settled that to constitute misconduct in a service, there must be commission or omission of some act on the part of the employee. Beside this, charge should be specific and must be without any ambiguity. The allegation of misconduct must be based on specific acts, deeds or omission of the employee. In absence of it, the charge shall be vague. The charge levelled against the petitioner is not at all specific, as such the same is vague. 8. The order impugned Annexure 5 also not suggest that the result of the school remained below standard due to commission or omission of any act on the part of petitioner. In absence of it, the charge shall be vague. The charge levelled against the petitioner is not at all specific, as such the same is vague. 8. The order impugned Annexure 5 also not suggest that the result of the school remained below standard due to commission or omission of any act on the part of petitioner. The result of an examination may go down for various reasons, and in every case teacher cannot be held responsible for it. The responsibility of teacher can be fixed by commission of his acts or omission on his part and not otherwise. 9. In view, of it, in my considered opinion, initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the allegation as mentioned in memorandum Annexure-1 dated 012.2000 was totally wrong. The charge levelled against the petitioner does not constitute any misconduct, being vague. Therefore, the order impugned Annexure-5 is also illegal. As I have already held the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority bad in eye of law, therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation is of no consequence. 10. In view of whatever discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The Annexure -5 dated 15.03.2001 is hereby quashed. The order of the Appellate Authority is also quashed. 11. No order as to costs.