Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 919 (JHR)

Rekha Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2013-07-30

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-petitioner is aggrieved against the dismissal order of writ petition dated 16th January, 2012. Hence, this L.P.A. 3. Detailed facts of the case may not be necessary, in view of the fact that undisputedly the appellant-petitioner was appointed on the post of teacher and was given charge of warden of one school, Kasturba Gandhi Girls School, Pathna, Sahibganj. There were some allegations that because of dispute between the appellant-petitioner and one Supriya Bharti, the environment in the school and hostel is becoming very bad, for which, complaints were received by the higher officers. A show cause notice by office letter no. 545 dated 21.04.2011 was issued to the appellant-petitioner, in which, there were five allegations against the petitioner: that petitioner was not working in the interest of the school and was working as a dictator; she used to scold girls without any reasons; she abused one accountant by saying him impotent and abused Smt. Supriya Bharti by saying her as deserted divorcee lady; when meal was not supplied according to prescribed menu and it was objected by children she used to scold the cook and lastly she used to leave the headquarters on Saturday and Sunday without taking prior permission. For these allegations, enquiry was conducted and by order dated 24th August, 2011, her services were terminated and she was removed from the post of teacher. 4. The petitioner challenged this order of removal from service dated 24th August, 2011 by preferring writ petition, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge by brief order dated 16th January, 2012 on the ground that an enquiry was conducted and therein she was found guilty, hence, no interference called for. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently submitted that the order dated 24th August, 2011 is absolutely illegal because of the several reasons. Firstly, the enquiry itself was conducted discriminately by discriminating the appellant-petitioner because of the plain and simple reason that allegations were against two employees, one petitioner-appellant and another Smt. Supriya Bharti, which is apparent from the order dated 24th August, 2011 itself. Firstly, the enquiry itself was conducted discriminately by discriminating the appellant-petitioner because of the plain and simple reason that allegations were against two employees, one petitioner-appellant and another Smt. Supriya Bharti, which is apparent from the order dated 24th August, 2011 itself. No enquiry was conducted against Supriya Bharti in spite of the fact that in order dated 24th August, 2011, it has been in first paragraph itself clearly mentioned that as per the enquiry report both the teachers should have been removed from service for which even parents gave consent. Another ground is that it has been alleged that by order dated 15.04.2011 appellant-petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of warden to another teacher Smt. Sudha Marandi and that order was not complied with and for which a show cause notice by letter no. 545 dated 21.04.2011 was issued to the petitioner, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-6 whereas this was not the charge in the charge-sheet. Not only above, even one enquiry which was conducted by Block Development Officer, Pathna on 27.06.2011, was considered in order dated 24th August, 2011 whereas that enquiry was conducted at the back of the petitioner and on the basis of that enquiry report no charge-sheet was served upon the appellant-petitioner so as to give opportunity to reply and submit objection against the enquiry report dated 27.06.2011. However, she submitted her explanation on 28th April, 2011 and she denied all allegations which has been levelled in the enquiry report dated 15th March, 2011. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner vehemently submitted that the order dated 24th August, 2011 is stigmatic in nature and by stigmatic order even contractual appointee cannot be removed from service. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner further submitted that the order dated 24th August, 2011 is absolutely wrong in view of the fact that enquiry report, which has been relied upon dated 15.03.2011 clearly indicate that allegations levelled against the appellant-petitioner has been found to be levelled because of the ill-motive and prejudices only and in spite of this finding without recording any reason for taking a different view straightway charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The enquiry report has not been rejected so far as this finding is concerned, therefore, the entire proceeding and initiation was wholly unwarranted. 7. The enquiry report has not been rejected so far as this finding is concerned, therefore, the entire proceeding and initiation was wholly unwarranted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that in contractual appointment appellant-petitioner was given full opportunity to contest the allegations levelled against her and for which a due procedure was followed and a show cause notice was issued and detailed findings have been recorded. 8. In view of the directions of this Court today one affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State that one post is lying vacant of teacher. 9. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents placed on record. It appears that it cannot be disputed that there were some quarrel between two lady teachers, one was Smt. Supriya Bharti, she was the former warden and the appellant-petitioner, she was the present warden of the school. Their quarrel appears to continue for long, if charge is accepted to be correct and in the enquiry report it has been held to be correct allegation. Undisputedly no enquiry was conducted against Supriya Bharti, against which also there were allegations and recommendation to remove her. In enquiry report, in last paragraph it is mentioned that Rekha Kumari, the appellant-petitioner, was a talented teacher and she want to work as strong administrator. However, so far as her working side is concerned that was found somewhat weak. Smt. Supriya Bharti, the ex-warden, was found in enquiry, to be a efficient administrator. However that fact was not relevant for the purpose of deciding of any of the guilt of the appellant-petitioner. Even then this fact has been taken note of as though the enquiry officer compared merit of two wardens, one former and another present and, therefore, in the enquiry report, it has been observed that Smt. Supriya Bharti is more concerned and dedicated for the girls and working as a elder sister and guardian. It also has been taken note of in the enquiry report that when Supriya Bharti was warden, there were allegations against her also and those allegations were also because of the prejudices against her. It also has been taken note of in the enquiry report that when Supriya Bharti was warden, there were allegations against her also and those allegations were also because of the prejudices against her. In totality, for both the wardens, former warden Supriya Bharti and appellant-petitioner, Rekha Kumari there were allegations but we have already observed that in enquiry report there was a clear finding that Rekha Kumari is talented and she is a strong administrator and allegation against her may be because of the prejudices. In spite of the finding, the allegations may be because of the prejudices no reasoned order has been recorded by any of the officers that findings in favour of the appellant-petitioner is wrong. In the order dated 24th August, 2011 it is clearly mentioned that for removal of both the teachers/wardens not only there is a recommendation but it finds support from the parents/guardians but admittedly no action, rather no enquiry was conducted against Smt. Supriya Bharti and thereby petitioner has been treated discriminately. 10. In order dated 24th August, 2011 one letter no. 539 dated 15.04.2011 was taken into account and it was held that the petitioner did not hand over charge in pursuance of letter referred above whereas that was not the charge levelled against the appellant-petitioner in the charge dated 21.04.2011. Therefore, such finding cannot be sustained for which petitioner was not given any opportunity to explain and according to learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, petitioner was not served with letter dated 15.04.2011. The enquiry officer considered the enquiry report dated 27.06.2011 for which also there was no charge in the charge-sheet dated 21.04.2011. In totality of the facts of the case, it appears that in the complaint made, due to some rivalry between two teachers an enquiry was conducted against one only and it was found that complaints may be because of the prejudices still in the enquiry and the impugned order totally irrelevant facts were considered and important facts have been ignored, which is apparent from the order and the charge, as in enquiry report no finding has been recorded on the issue of absence from the school on Saturday and Sunday without leave of the higher officers etc. 11. 11. In view of above reasons in the present case the order in question is stigmatic order and contrary to the findings recorded in the enquiry report, which has not been dissented by the disciplinary authority and then disciplinary authority considered irrelevant facts referred above. In view of above order dated 24th August, 2011 is liable to be set aside and set aside. 12. Hence, the L.P.A is allowed the impugned order passed dated 16.01.2012 is also set aside and writ petition is allowed. The respondent-State is directed to re-instate the petitioner in service with 50 % back wages. It is made clear that giving charge of the warden to the appellant-petitioner is dependent upon the scheme of the contract and therefore, the State is free to proceed to give charge of warden to the appellant-petitioner, if the respondent-State in administrative exigency finds it proper and appropriate. However, because of this order, the respondents may not feel prejudice against the petitioner and if she is legally and under rule is entitled to have the charge of warden that may also be given. The order be given effect to within a period of one months from today. The petitioner shall be entitled to 50 % of back wages including 50 % of past salary/honorarium, which was payable to the petitioner before her removal.