Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1370 (JHR)

Annie Kujur (Ekka) v. State of Bihar

2009-11-04

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2009
Order This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2006*, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition and thus upheld the order of termination of the petitioner/appellant herein dated 1.3.1997. Consequently she was refused to be reinstated in service. 2. The facts of the case disclose that the appellant herein was an Assistant Teacher in the St. Xavier's High School, Chaibasa, in the district of Singhbhum (West), Jharkhand, and a show cause notice dated 10.12.1996 was issued to her alleging that an 7.12.1996 and again on 8.12.1996, she behaved in a most indecent and high-handed manner as she picked up quarrel with the principal and other teachers of the school and used abusive language and finally she stripped herself naked, which was an outrageous and a most shocking incident to be tolerated by the school authorities. The appellant responded to the show cause, but the same was not found satisfactory and hence, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant. In spite of service of notice, she defied and refused to appear before the enquiry committee; finally the enquiry concluded and an order for dismissal from service was passed against the appellant. The order of dismissal, however, was sent to the School Service Board for approval but the same was not responded either by rejecting the order of dismissal or approving the same for more than nine years. The appellant although acquiesced with the order of dismissal which had not been approved by the Board, she after a lapse of nine years, filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge assailing the order of her dismissal. 3. The principal ground of challenge to the order of dismissal was a technical plea to the effect that the School Service Board having not approved the order of dismissal by a written communication to the school authority, the order of dismissal ought not to be treated as final and therefore, it was fit to be set aside. It was also, inter alia, pleaded that the order of dismissal was a consequence of an enquiry, which was ex parte in nature. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by a reasoned judgment and order dated 30.8.2006, against which this appeal has been preferred. 4. It was also, inter alia, pleaded that the order of dismissal was a consequence of an enquiry, which was ex parte in nature. The learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition by a reasoned judgment and order dated 30.8.2006, against which this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submission advanced before the learned Single Judge and submitted that since the enquiry was ex parte in nature and the order of dismissal was neither approved nor disapproved by the School Service Board, which was a mandatory condition under the rule, the order of dismissal ought not to be treated as final. He has, thus, submitted that since the order of dismissal was not approved by a written order by the Board, the same ought not to be given effect to. 5. The learned Single Judge was pleased to reject both the conditions, in which we find no infirmity as we fully approved the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the silence of the Board for about nine years on the order of dismissal of the appellant ought to be treated as an approval. The Board having not communicated the school disapproving the order of dismissal for nine years, obviously amounted to a deemed approval of the order of dismissal. It may also be taken note of the fact that the appellant herself had not challenged the order of dismissal for more than nine years, although she was aware that the School Service Board had not approved the order of her dismissal and obviously she too inferred that non-communication of a written order by the Board amounts to approval of the order of dismissal. 6. In so far as the plea of ex parte enquiry is concerned, the same also is devoid of any substance as the appellant had full opportunity to participate in the enquiry after the notice in regard to enquiry was served on her and if she willingly did not appear in the enquiry, the same cannot be treated as denial of opportunity to her to participate in the enquiry. 7. Besides this, she had already got opportunity to express her defence in a show cause notice which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and the same was rejected. Copy of the enquiry report also was duly served on the appellant. 7. Besides this, she had already got opportunity to express her defence in a show cause notice which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and the same was rejected. Copy of the enquiry report also was duly served on the appellant. Thus, neither the enquiry can be held to be defective, nor it would be appropriate to hold, under the existing facts, that the petitioner/appellant was denied opportunity of hearing so as to treat the enquiry as ex parte enquiry. 8. We, thus, find no substance in this appeal and hence is dismissed at the admission stage itself.