Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1152 (JHR)

Subodh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-09-22

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : I. A. No. 3529 of 2014 Petitioner seeks to challenge the office order bearing Memo no. 222 dated 8th March, 2014 (Annexure-7) issued by respondent no. 3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand, Education Project Godda, whereunder the original impugned order of his termination from the post of Para-Teacher of Upgraded Middle School, Nathgora, Sundarpahari bearing Memo no. 179 dated 12th February, 2013 (Annexure-2) issued by the same respondent has been affirmed pursuant to the decision of Deputy Commissioner, Godda dated 5th March, 2014. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendments are necessary and in relation to the main grievance of the petitioner as the original order of termination has been affirmed later on. It is submitted that the impugned termination orders are in violation of principle of natural justice, as no opportunity was granted before passing the original order of termination. 3. Counsel for the Respondent-State submits that the office order dated 8th March, 2014 is also enclosed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-B and has been passed by the respondent no. 3 pursuant to an explanation furnished by the petitioner for such absence and on the basis of a decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda. 4. Be that as it may, since the proposed amendments are in relation to the original grievance of the petitioner, the same are allowed. 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A. No. 3529 of 2014 stands disposed of. 6. Let I.A. be treated as part of the record. W. P. (S) No. 1956 of 2014 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Petitioner, herein, has been terminated from the post of Para-Teacher of Upgraded Middle School, Nathgora, Sundarpahari, District-Godda by Memo no. 179 dated 12th February, 2013 issued by respondent no.3, District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Godda on the ground of his absence during inspection at 11.45 in forenoon on 12th February, 2013 during visit of Deputy Commissioner, Godda along with Block Education Extension Officer, Sundarpahari, Godda. The impugned order says that the members of the Village Education Committee had also reported that the petitioner and another Para Teacher, Devendra Thakur were not regular in the school. 9. The impugned order says that the members of the Village Education Committee had also reported that the petitioner and another Para Teacher, Devendra Thakur were not regular in the school. 9. The main ground on the part of the petitioner to assail the impugned order is that the original order dated 12th February, 2013 has been passed for only one day alleged absence and in complete violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that after passing of the impugned order (Annexure-2) a semblance of show cause has been issued through letter no. 18 dated 16th February, 2013 (Annexure-3) issued by Block Education Extension Officer, Sundarpahari, Godda, respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that despite offering his explanation through Annexure4 enclosing the Medical Prescription of his treatment at Additional PHC, Panjwara Banka on the same date of the inspection as also the Medical Certificate furnished by the Medical Officer of the said Additional PHC., the respondents have only confirmed the order of punishment without any independent and impartial application of mind. Therefore, petitioner has been gravely prejudiced by the impugned action of the respondents. 10. Counsel for the Respondent-State has sought to defend the impugned orders and also referred to stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the absence of the petitioner on 12th February, 2013 was not adequately explained and he had no reason to go out of territorial area of the State of Jharkhand for undertaking treatment at Primary Health Centre in Banka district falling under the territory of successor State of Bihar. It is further submitted that the villagers and members of Village Education Committee have also complained to the respondent authorities about the infrequent attendance of the petitioner and other Para-Teacher. The explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by Deputy Commissioner, Godda, who did not find any reason to revoke the original order of termination. Therefore, the order is proper in the eye of law and requires no interference. 11. The factual road map of the case of the parties noticed hereinabove show that there has been a complete violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of termination of the petitioner's service as Para-Teacher of the school in question. A decision has been taken before hand while a formality of asking show cause has been undertaken thereafter. 11. The factual road map of the case of the parties noticed hereinabove show that there has been a complete violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of termination of the petitioner's service as Para-Teacher of the school in question. A decision has been taken before hand while a formality of asking show cause has been undertaken thereafter. There is no justification on the part of the respondents for such a post decisional hearing. It further appears that even after the explanation of the petitioner enclosing the medical prescription and the certificate of a Government Doctor of Additional PHC in the district of Banka, the respondents have in a premeditated state of mind affirmed the order of termination passed on the same date, on which an inspection was held and that too for alleged absence for one day. Petitioner never got any opportunity to examine any person, who were part of the inquiry report or whose statements were taken by the respondent authorities to come to a conclusion about irregular presence of the petitioner in the said school. Application of natural justice by giving hearing after taking action is to be restricted only if likely to paralyse the administrative process and defeat the urgency of the measure. (See Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248 ). Such situation was not at all warranted in the facts of the instant case. 12. In substance, it appears that the impugned order has been passed incomplete violation of Audi Alteram Partem Rule where opportunity of hearing or representation against a proposed action is a sine qua non before taking any adverse decision against a person. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot survive legal scrutiny being in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. 13. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 12th February, 2013 (Annexure-2) and 8th March, 2014 (Annexure-7) issued by The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand, Godda, respondent no. 3 are quashed. Petitioner shall be reinstated in service. However, it would be open to the respondents to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after due opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.