Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 668 (JHR)

Naresh Das v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-14

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction on the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent No. 3) to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate order including his claim for salary for the period from 15.1.2007 till date. He has further prayed for a direction to permit him to work and function as Para Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Baramerkhi. District Deoghar. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher in Primary School, Baramerkhi, Deoghar. The petitioner was paid salary after his joining till the year 2006. Petitioner, however, was arrested in a criminal charge in 2006. The criminal charge was not related to his service. On 11.1.2007 the petitioner was released on bail. The Block Education Extension Officer, Devipur Deoghar by letter dated 1.2.2007 allowed the petitioner to join w.e.f. 15.1.2007. The petitioner was also allowed to put his signature on the attendance register. However, Headmaster of the School is not allowing the petitioner to put his signature. The petitioner brought the same to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar by filing a representation, but till date the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any order. It has been submitted that by order dated 5.7.2008 the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar had deputed the petitioner on duty in Shrawani Mela from 17.7.2008 to 16.8.2008. 3. The respondents opposed the writ petition. In counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner was put in prison from 4.7.2006 to 10.1.2007 due to some misdeed in the school premises on 9.3.2006 and from that date his engagement as Para Teacher came to an end. The petitioner's conduct created a panic among the students and guardians and. as such, there is no question of accepting his joining and allowing him to teach the students. The Headmaster, as such, did not allow the petitioner to resume his duty. It has been stated that the petitioner has forcefully put his signature in the attendance register. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to G.P. III. The Headmaster, as such, did not allow the petitioner to resume his duty. It has been stated that the petitioner has forcefully put his signature in the attendance register. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to G.P. III. From the facts and materials on record I find that though the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner has not been allowed to join due to his involvement in criminal case and that his behaviour is not congenial for the school, no such charge has been framed against him and no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to explain the same. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents have not issued any order terminating services of the petitioner. The respondents have stated in the counter-affidavit that due to his imprisonment for sometime, his engagement came to an end. But no legal provision has been placed before this Hon'ble Court to treat termination of services of the petitioner on that ground without any order legally passed by the competent authority. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to finally decide the petitioner's grievance/claim by speaking reason. If there is any allegation against the petitioner, the concerned authority can inform the same to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and rule of natural justice. The respondents shall complete the process of enquiry, if any, and pass final order within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.