Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 295 (HP)

Mathi Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2012-05-21

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. As per the averments contained in the petition, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier on 11.8.1997. She was made Whole Time Water Carrier with effect from 22.3.2006. She was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 88. One Sh. Kamlesh son of Smt. Sundari Devi, Part Time Water Carrier, Government Primary School, Bhaloo, Tehsil Chopal made a complaint against the petitioner that she had joined her duties on 11.8.1997 and not on 11.7.1997. The matter was looked into. She was served with a notice, to which she filed reply and consequently, she was reverted from the post of Whole Time Water Carrier to Part Time Water Carrier vide order 22.1.2011. 2. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not concealed any facts at the time when she was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier. He then contended that the action of the respondents to revert the petitioner after more than five years is bad in law. He lastly contended that the petitioner has not been heard before the decision was taken to revert her. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has justified the issuance of Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The fact finding inquiry, on the basis of complaint of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar, was ordered by respondent No.3 from the Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Nerva, District Shimla. According to the inquiry, the Centre Head Teacher, Government Primary School, Kupvi had submitted wrong particulars, i.e. date of joining as Part Time Water Carrier as 11.7.1997 though she had joined her duties on 11.8.1997. She was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 88 in the final seniority list of the category of Part Time water Carrier. The petitioner on the basis of seniority was made Whole Time Water Carrier on 22.3.2006. Petitioner was served with a notice on 18.3.2010, to which she filed reply on 1.4.2010. Respondent No.2 has also heard the petitioner personally on 21.12.2010. The order of reversion was passed after issuing showing cause notice and hearing the petitioner on 22.1.2011. Thereafter, order dated 16.2.2011 was issued by respondent No.3 to implement order dated 22.1.2011. She has been relieved on 25.2.2011. Respondent No.2 has also heard the petitioner personally on 21.12.2010. The order of reversion was passed after issuing showing cause notice and hearing the petitioner on 22.1.2011. Thereafter, order dated 16.2.2011 was issued by respondent No.3 to implement order dated 22.1.2011. She has been relieved on 25.2.2011. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner joined as Part Time Water Carrier on 11.8.1997 and not on 11.7.1997 on the basis of which she was assigned seniority at Sr. No. 88. Petitioner has been given sufficient opportunity to explain her case by issuing show cause notice on 18.3.2010. She has also been heard on 21.12.2010. There is no illegality in the procedure adopted by the respondents while reverting the petitioner from Whole Time Water Carrier to Part Time Water Carrier vide order dated 22.1.2011. Respondents for the first time have come to know about the date of joining of the petitioner as 11.8.1997 and not 11.7.1997 only on the basis of complaint made by Kamlesh Kumar, whose mother is also working as Part Time Water Carrier. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not be reverted after a lapse of five years. It is open to the employer to take action against the employee as and when the misconduct is brought to its notice. The procedure in accordance with law has been followed. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.