Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1356 (JHR)

Shyam Lal Mahato v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2015
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 07.05.2007 issued by respondent no.4, pertaining to termination from services of the petitioner. 2. Sans details, the facts as described in the writ petition, in a nutshell is that on 21.08.2002 a meeting was convened in the village Indkanta for appointment of teachers in Utkramit Primary School, Indkanta and in the said meeting the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment on the post of teacher, which was subsequently confirmed by the respondents-authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities. But, surprisingly, in the month of May, 2007, he was terminated without any notice or show cause by Block Education Extension Officer, Chakradharpur-respondent no. 4 giving reference to a complaint made by a member of Legislative Assembly. It has further been submitted that even the said termination letter was served upon him in April, 2008, till date he continued to impart education to the students without any complain. It has further been submitted that when the salary was not paid to the petitioner, he enquired about the matter and came to know that his contract has been terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before respondent no. 4, but, no response was given. However, prior to termination of the petitioner, it has been alleged that one Leela Mahato was appointed by the respondents without recommendation of the village Education Committee and without following the due procedure made for appointment. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination, the petitioner having no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 controverting the averments made in the writ application. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that on perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer, Chakradharpur, it is crystal clear that basing on the complaint made by the local member of Legislative Assembly and villagers of Indkata village for various irregularities done by the petitioner, the BEEO, Chakradharpur conducted a detailed enquiry, in which, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved and on the basis of report submitted by BEEO, Chakradharpur, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 7.05.2007. 5. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar, J.C to G.P III for the respondents-State and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the impugned order of termination has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and even the copy of enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner before infliction of major punishment, which has caused gross prejudice to the petitioner. The respondents-authority ought to have fulfilled the minimum requirement of audi alteram partem before dispensing with the services of the petitioner. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents referring to supplementary counter affidavit submitted that petitioner was selected on the recommendation of meeting held in the Gram Sabha, on contractual basis, not against the sanctioned post. It has further been submitted that there is no specific rules for following principles of natural justice as per the terms and conditions of Para Teacher. However, the petitioner was allowed to explain his defence in the Gram Sabha and before the Block Education Extension Officer, Chakradharpur, but, he failed to submit his explanation and did not appear personally on the date of enquiry. It has further been submitted that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific and definite, which amounts to indiscipline and misconduct on the part petitioner and hence, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 07.05.2007. 8. It has further been submitted that all the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific and definite, which amounts to indiscipline and misconduct on the part petitioner and hence, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 07.05.2007. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, it is crystal clear that before termination of services of the petitioner neither any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and the enquiry has been done behind the back of the petitioner and thereby the impugned order of termination of services of petitioner has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of termination dated 07.05.2007 is not legally sustainable in law, which is hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to start the proceeding afresh from the stage of issuance of show cause notice and take a decision afresh in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and affected person, if any, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.