Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 683 (JHR)

Ramawatar Poddar v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-14

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court.- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of punishment order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka, whereby besides warning, three annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect and it was ordered that the petitioner shall not get anything except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension as well as appellate order dated 23.8.2004, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 7.3.2003 was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case arc that, the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Head Master in-charge, Government Basic School, Dhanbai (Saraiyahat) and he was suspended on 24.7.2002. A departmental proceeding was initiated by Memo No. 875 dated 21.9.2002 and draft charge was communicated to the petitioner. By letter dated 13.12.2002, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 19.12.2002 and accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 20th December, 2002. The charges framed against the petitioner and his replies are as under: (i) Charge No. 1:-Non-compliance of transfer order. The reply was that all teachers were asked to give three options for transfer and all except the petitioner were given their place of option. The petitioner, filed representation for giving a place of option in view of his approaching date of superannuation. The petitioner was given a place of option after about 10 months but by the time his salary remained held up for eight months and when he prayed for payment of salary he was placed under suspension. His salary for 16 months and subsistence allowances for 5 months were kept held up and he was coerced to join his place of transfer. (ii) Charge No. 2:- Two teachers of the school where the petitioner was working were not allowed to take classes. The reply was that the aforesaid two teachers were absent for six months and although the matter was reported, no action was taken. This can be verified from the pramukh of the Block. (iii) Charge No. 3:- Other teachers of the school were not allowed to mark attendance and teaching was hampered. The reply was that since the teachers used to be absent the question of taking class by them was out of context. (iv) Charge No. 4:- Not handing over charge of the school and thereby hampering the work of the school. (iii) Charge No. 3:- Other teachers of the school were not allowed to mark attendance and teaching was hampered. The reply was that since the teachers used to be absent the question of taking class by them was out of context. (iv) Charge No. 4:- Not handing over charge of the school and thereby hampering the work of the school. The reply was that due to the arbitrary action of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Dumka and Deputy Director of Education, Dumka and District Education Officer, Dumka in not releasing the salary of the petitioner and subsistence allowance for more than a year in spite of the direction of the Hon’ble Court and forcing the petitioner to incur loan from local traders, his life was in danger of being assaulted in the locality where the school was located that this situation was created and for which the petitioner is not at fault. 3. On conclusion of enquiry, a report was submitted on 7.2.2003, holding the charges proved against the petitioner and the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 15.2.2003. The petitioner filed his second show-cause reply on 26.2.2003. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of penalty dated 7.3.2003, whereby an order of (a) with-holding of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect, (b) warning to the petitioner to be careful in future, and (c) entitlement for only subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period of suspension, was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure8), which was dismissed vide order dated 23.8.2004. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (5) No. 4936 of 2003, which was dismissed with direction to the. Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months and thereafter, a Contempt Case bearing Cont. (C) No. 499 of 2004 was also filed and in the proceeding of the said Contempt Case the appellate order dated 23.8.2004 was supplied to the petitioner. In the proceeding before the High Court an order was passed for payment of legal dues amounting to Rs. 1.72.885.00/- to the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 4. In the proceeding before the High Court an order was passed for payment of legal dues amounting to Rs. 1.72.885.00/- to the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition challenging the order of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating that enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to defend his case. It has also been stated that amount of subsistence allowance has already been paid to the petitioner and in compliance of order passed by this Court in the proceeding of the Cont. Case (C) No. 499 of 2004, legal dues amounting to Rs. 1.72.885.00/- has also been paid to the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and in fact a full-fledged enquiry should have been conducted in view of the order of penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect which is a major punishment. It is further submitted that before an order of payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was passed authorities were required to give a second show-cause notice to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not raised a grievance in the writ petition that the aforesaid enquiry was not conducted for imposition of major penalty. In fact such submission cannot be entertained in view of averments made in the writ petition itself. Enquiry was conducted and a copy of enquiry report was given to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice, therefore it can not be said that the aforesaid enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. He has further submitted that nowhere in the writ petition, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that before an order was passed for payment of only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, a second show-cause notice was required to be given to the petitioner and therefore, at this stage, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 8. 8. A perusal of charge memo given to the petitioner would disclose that the charge levelled against the petitioner is very serious. The Department has examined witnesses, who have supported the case of Department. On conclusion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of penalty dated 7.3.2003 was passed. Appellate order also discloses that the Appellate Authority has applied his mind and on the basis of materials on record the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. It is also recorded in the impugned order that on 10.2.2004, 27.2.2004, 18.6.2004, dates were fixed by the Enquiry Officer but the petitioner did not appear in the proceeding of enquiry. 9. In view of the aforesaid. I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.