Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 39 (ALL)

Sri Narain Misra v. State of U. P.

2010-01-05

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT A.P. SAHI, J. The petitioner is Assistant Basic Education Officer and he has come up against the suspension order dated 20.11.2009 whereby he is being proceeded with for a disciplinary inquiry on a prima facie opinion that he was responsible for non payment of salary to Smt. Vijai Laxmi Singh which has lowered the prestige of the Department as is evident from the background of the litigation in this case. 2. One Smt. Vijai Laxmi Singh was promoted as an Assistant Teacher in a Senior Primary School where she was working since 2007 but her salary were not released. This Court summoned the Director of Education (Basic) in person to explain as to why the petitioner has not been paid her salary for more than 2 years. The Secretary Basic Education Government of U.P. was also summoned and a counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition by Shri Anoop Chandra Pandey copy whereof is annexure-10 to the writ petition. 3. After the filing of the compliance affidavit the Secretary Basic Education, Government of U.P. on 14th November called upon the Director for holding an enquiry within a week as to who were the officials responsible for delay in payment to the teacher for almost two years. Consequent upon the said information having been tendered the Director Education (Basic) passed orders on 20 November 2009 suspending the petitioner which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Shri V.C. Mishra, learned senior counsel contends that the petitioner is the Assistant Basic Education Officer and, therefore, is not responsible for any payment of salary to a teacher. He submits that the responsibility of payment is on the District Basic Education Officer and as a matter of fact the petitioner has been victimized for the mistake of his superior officers. He further submits that an order was passed by Assistant Director of Education (Basic) on 29.11.2007 to stop payment of salary and not to make payment to such teachers who have not complied with the transfer orders. Taking shelter of the said order Shri Mishra contends that it was not possible for the petitioner to have released the salary. He further submits that an order was passed by Assistant Director of Education (Basic) on 29.11.2007 to stop payment of salary and not to make payment to such teachers who have not complied with the transfer orders. Taking shelter of the said order Shri Mishra contends that it was not possible for the petitioner to have released the salary. Shri Mishra has further invited the attention of the Court to the explanation given by the petitioner on 10.08.2009, copy whereof is annexure-8 to the writ petition wherein it has been stated that a request had been made to the Basic Education Officer who is the disbursing authority for finalization of the said claim of Smt. Vijai Laxmi Singh. Shri Mishra therefore, contends that the petitioner has no where shown any dereliction in duty and as a matter of fact it was not his duty to make the payments. Accordingly the ground for suspension cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that paragraph 22 of the writ petition itself indicates that the petitioner had not issued any instructions with regard to release of salary on the ground of non-availability of the last pay certificate and the service book. These documents were provided for according to the petitioner on 14.11.2009 and therefore, it is evident that the petitioner had no role with regard to any delay in release of salary. 6. Shri V.C. Mishra learned senior counsel in response thereto contends that even if it is assumed that petitioner has some obligation to discharge with regard to the payment of salary to the employee, yet he was actually not responsible at all in view of the submissions advanced herein above. The submission of Shri Mishra is that it was on account of the transfer orders of the employee that the last pay certificate and service book was not available for which the petitioner was no where responsible. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it is evident that the employee was paid the salary only after this Court had summoned the Director of Education (Basic) and Secretary Basic Education. The fact that the delay was caused is not disputed. The only dispute raised is about the cause for such delayed payment. It is in this regard that the inquiry has been set up and the petitioner has been suspended. The fact that the delay was caused is not disputed. The only dispute raised is about the cause for such delayed payment. It is in this regard that the inquiry has been set up and the petitioner has been suspended. The cause is to be finally determined in the inquiry itself. This Court cannot convert itself into an inquiry Tribunal and enter into the merits of the claim and explanation of the petitioner. 8. Sri V.C. Mishra contends that the charge is not grave enough so as to warrant suspension. The aforesaid fact that an employee had to approach this Court for payment of salary and there was delay on the part of the Department is being inquired into. The petitioner is a link in that inquiry and he is the concerned Assistant Basic Education Officer of the area who is to transmit information in relation to the employees under his control. It is correct that the final drawing and disbursing officer is the Basic Education Officer but the entire documents are processed through the Assistant Basic Education Officer. This is also reflected in paragraph 22 of the writ petition. In such a situation whether the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties diligently or not is yet to be found in the inquiry and for that this Court need not go into the gravity of the charge at this stage. 9. Sri V.C. Mishra has invited the attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of the judgement dated 16.11.2009 in the writ petition filed by Smt. Vijai Laxmi Singh. A perusal of the said judgement clearly indicates that the District Education Officer had passed order dated 29.11.2007 which was not in accordance with law and the same was quashed together with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. A perusal of the judgement clearly indicates that the employee was put to harassment and it was on account of non relieving of the said employee that she could not join on the post in question. 10. After having discussed the matter threadbare, it was found by this Court that the employee had suffered agony for 2 years by not getting salary on account of the irresponsible approach of the authorities. 10. After having discussed the matter threadbare, it was found by this Court that the employee had suffered agony for 2 years by not getting salary on account of the irresponsible approach of the authorities. The said judgement clearly indicts the officials of the department and, therefore, it is clear that the action which has been taken is in order to ensure that the erring officials should not be spared and no such mistake is committed in future. 11. In the aforesaid background of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner was absolutely innocent and had no role at all. Accordingly none of the submissions advanced merit consideration. The impugned order does not call for any interference at this stage. The writ petition, therefore, is disposed of with a observation that the inquiry shall proceed expeditiously and shall be concluded preferably within a period of 3 months from today. The petitioner is expected to co-operate in the inquiry. 12. The writ petition is accordingly consigned to records.