Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 494 (JHR)

Shankar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2012-04-02

D.N.PATEL

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for challenging the order of termination dated 27th August, 2008, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was serving as Para Teacher in the school, in question, since 2003 and without giving any notice, without holding any inquiry and without any inquiry report, the so called complains, filed by some persons have been presumed to be true and correct and the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Thus, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice and without any justifiable reason, the services of the petitioner have been terminated with effect from 27th August, 2008. 3. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the so called complain made by some persons, a copy whereof, have not been supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard have been given to the petitioner otherwise, the petitioner would have pointed out that there is no substance in the complain made by those villagers. Moreover, no inquiry has been conducted nor any report has been given to the petitioner on the contrary, a letter dated 24th January, 2009 has been written by the respondents that the charges levelled against the present petitioner have not been proved and they are found to be false and hence, the petitioner may be reinstated. 4. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the villagers had put certain allegations against the petitioner and these allegations were inquired into by the Block Statistical Supervisor, Garhwa and on the basis of the report given by the Block Statistical Supervisor, Garhwa, a decision has been taken for termination of the services of the present petitioner. 5. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and the respondents are relying upon AnnexuresA, B & C and by order at AnnexureC, the charges levelled against the present petitioner are found to be true and correct and therefore, the petitioner's services were brought to an end. 6. 5. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and the respondents are relying upon AnnexuresA, B & C and by order at AnnexureC, the charges levelled against the present petitioner are found to be true and correct and therefore, the petitioner's services were brought to an end. 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the respondents dated 27th August, 2008, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition on the following facts and reasons: (i) The present petitioner was appointed as a Para Teacher in 2003 and was working as such till his date of termination. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that some complains were received from the villagers about the present petitioner, but never any show cause notice has been given to the petitioner nor any inquiry has been conducted by the respondents and there is no inquiry report annexed with the counter affidavit. No show cause has been given to the petitioner about the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thus, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) It appears from the facts of the case that never the so called complains, which were received from the villagers, a copy whereof have been supplied to the petitioner. Only allegation is on record, but the show cause notice and the inquiry officer's report are not in existence at all because no inquiry has been conducted. I have perused AnnexuresA, B & C. None of these Annexures are pointing out that the petitioner was ever heard in the so called inquiry conducted by the Block Statistical Supervisor, Garhwa and even exparte report given by the aforesaid officer is also so vague that how the charges are proved have not been pointed out. Who gave what evidence nothing is on record. Allegations may be severe or gross, but that requires evidences. Even on preponderance of probabilities, the allegations must have been proved but, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents. (iv) In view of these facts without giving any notice and without any inquiry, the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end. 7. Allegations may be severe or gross, but that requires evidences. Even on preponderance of probabilities, the allegations must have been proved but, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents. (iv) In view of these facts without giving any notice and without any inquiry, the services of the present petitioner have been brought to an end. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I hereby, quash and set aside the termination order dated 27th August, 2008, passed by the respondents, which is at Annexure1 to the memo of the present petition. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Para Teacher and to pay the salary from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. Nonetheless, liberty is reserved with the respondents to hold inquiry, if they so advised, in accordance with law and at least following the principles of natural justice. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 500/(Rupees five hundred only), which will be paid to the petitioner by the respondents, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court. Petition allowed.