Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 698 (JHR)

Chandeshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-19

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No. 766 dated 9th May, 2007 issued by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, Saraikella-Kharsawan, whereby the Petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Headmaster of New Primary School, Sharma Basti, Adityapur (Gamharia). 2. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the grounds that the same has been issued without informing the reason and without giving any opportunity of representation hearing to the Petitioner and that the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer has no jurisdiction to issue order of dismissal, as the District Programme Officer is not the appointing authority of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was initially appointed by the Village Education Committee as Shiksha Doot on 1st November, 2002. He was appointed as Headmaster of the said school w.e.f. 4th May, 2007 and since then he had been discharging his duty without any complain. Suddenly, by office order dated 9th May, 2007 (Annexure-3) the Petitioner was dismissed from the post of Headmaster without assigning any reason or without holding any enquiry whatsoever. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, contesting the writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that on a complaint filed by the residents of village Sharma Basti, an enquiry was set up against the Petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer and Block Development Officer, Gamharia. On enquiry, it was found that due to misconduct of the Petitioner, law and order situation of the locality was disturbed. 4. On submission of the enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan directed to terminate the Petitioner's service. Accordingly, impugned order was issued removing him from the said post. 5. It has been stated that the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer and the Deputy Commissioner have power to dissolve the Village Education Committee on the ground of dispute or its malfunctioning. In view of the above, any appointee of the said committee can be terminated by the said authorities. It has been further stated that even the Chairman of Village Education Committee had lodged a complaint of molestation against the Petitioner and that on the basis of such charges, the Petitioner had been terminated from the post of Para Teacher. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It has been further stated that even the Chairman of Village Education Committee had lodged a complaint of molestation against the Petitioner and that on the basis of such charges, the Petitioner had been terminated from the post of Para Teacher. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is not disputed by the Respondents that the Petitioner has been dismissed from his post by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Saraikella-Kharsawan. The Petitioner has alleged that before issuing the impugned order of dismissal, no notice or opportunity of representation/hearing was given to him. The said fact has not been controverted by the Respondents in their counter affidavit. In order to justify the impugned order, the Respondents have alleged that the termination of the Petitioner's service was the result of certain complaint and charges. The said stand of the Respondents makes it clear that the impugned order is stigmatic and punitive. 7. It is well established that a person cannot be penalised on the basis of charges without giving any opportunity of hearing or representation and that any punitive order passed without complying with the requirement of the principles of natural justice is a nullity. 8. In view of the said admitted position, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and the same cannot sustain in law. 9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 9th May, 2007, I find that the same is a cryptic and non-speaking order. No reason has been recorded in the said order for dismissing the Petitioner. The order is in one sentence and it precisely says that the Petitioner is being dismissed on the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharsawan, issued by his Letter No. 848 dated 4th May, 2007. However, the said order of the Deputy Commissioner has also not been enclosed with the impugned order. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9th May, 2007 is quashed. 11. However, it is made clear that this order does not mean to prevent the Respondents from proceeding against the Petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law as well as the principles of natural justice, if the Respondents find any legal ground for such proceeding. Petition allowed.