Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 574 (JHR)

Shankar Kumar Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-06

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of memo dated 29.01.2010 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services and further prayed for reinstatement in services. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner, after following due procedure of selection, was appointed on 01.11.2007 as para teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Goradih Block Sundarpahari, Godda and continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his higher authorities. On 29.01.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda visited several schools within the block of Sunderpahari, Godda together with the Minister of Human Resource Development Department, Jharkhand during which, some of the teachers in concerned schools were found absent and due to this reason, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda suspended some of them and also dismissed some of them by issuance of common memo dated 29.01.2010, including the petitioner. 3. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, J.C to G.P. II for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was present in the school but he has illegally been dismissed with other teachers by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda due to the reason that only seven children were present in his school and he had no knowledge about Mid-day Meal of the Children. It has further been submitted that for such affairs the petitioner alone cannot be made responsible. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner is not the competent authority, who can dismiss a para teacher from services, as such the impugned order is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that the services of the petitioner was terminated without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent no. 3 did not dismiss the petitioner illegally rather he dismissed the petitioner on the ground that during the inspection he failed to tell about the classification of the mid-day meal of the children and he also failed to explain the reason for such a poor presence of children in the school. 3 did not dismiss the petitioner illegally rather he dismissed the petitioner on the ground that during the inspection he failed to tell about the classification of the mid-day meal of the children and he also failed to explain the reason for such a poor presence of children in the school. It has further been submitted that in the light of the above, the Block Education Officer, Sunderpahari also removed the petitioner from services vide letter dated 1.6.2010. Similarly, the headmaster of the said school and chairman of the village education committee also by issuing joint letter confirmed that the petitioner has been removed from duties vide letter dated 30.05.2010. So, the petitioner has been dismissed from his post by all competent authorities. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is clear that before issuing impugned order of dismissal from services the petitioner has neither been served with any show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case, thereby the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and has been issued in complete violation of principles of Audi Alteram Partem, which is a sine qua non before taking any adverse decision against any person and hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside and petitioner is directed to be reinstated in services forthwith. However, disposal of this writ application would not preclude the respondents to initiate a fresh proceeding and take a decision thereof in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.