Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 747 (JHR)

Renu Kumari v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-04-21

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2017
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. (CAV) - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing Memo dated 09.05.2013 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services and for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of teacher on 17.09.2010 for imparting teaching in the subject of language i.e. Hindi, English and Sanskrit and was posted as Warden in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Girls School, Chatra. While continuing as such, a memo dated 22.04.2013, which was received by the petitioner on 30.04.2013, was served upon the petitioner to hand over charge of warden to Smt. Farhat Zabi on the ground that there is some complain from the students in relation to her husband. But in the meantime, vide letter dated 29.04.2013, petitioner was show caused as to why she has not handed over charge in terms of letter dated 22.04.2013 and was directed to hand over the charge within twenty four hours. Further, on the same day i.e. on 29.04.2013, by terms of letter dated 29.04.2013 petitioner was served with a show cause notice containing certain charges and she was directed to file reply by 07.05.2013. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her reply vide letter dated 06.05.2013 and thereafter straightway order dated 09.05.2013 was passed whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services, which is impugned in this writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has denied the allegations levelled against her, it was incumbent upon the respondents to appoint enquiry officer to take evidence, to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, to cross-examine the witnesses and to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only thereafter, the order of punishment could have been passed. But, in the case at hand, no such procedure has been followed by the respondents rendering the impugned order vulnerable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from bare perusal of order dated 09.05.2013, it appears that in the meeting presided over by Deputy Commissioner, Charta on 09.05.2013, in which, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner and in terms of the said decision, the impugned order of dismissal from services has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from bare perusal of order dated 09.05.2013, it appears that in the meeting presided over by Deputy Commissioner, Charta on 09.05.2013, in which, it was decided to dismiss the petitioner and in terms of the said decision, the impugned order of dismissal from services has been passed. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has not heard the petitioner or no notice of such meeting was ever issued upon the petitioner. Furthermore, on perusal of impugned order it further appears that no enquiry officer was ever appointed, no evidence was recorded and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr as reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 and in the case of Sant Lal Gupta & Ors v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Ors as reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 . 4. As against this, learned Sr. S.C. I appearing for the respondents submitted that from the beginning of her joining, the petitioner remained controversial. Her behaviour was very harsh with students and staffs of the school. Perversely, she made complaint against Farhat Zabi before the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, who constituted a committee to enquire into the matter. On enquiry, all the allegations made by the petitioner was found false and the petitioner accepted that she had made such allegations only out of frustration and depression. In between, a dispute arose between petitioner and Farhat, Assistant Teacher of the said school. Pursuant thereafter, the petitioner and said Farhat Zabi was transferred. But on the transferred place i.e. in Itkhori also, various irregularities was found against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was absent since 22.04.2013, hence, memo dated 22.04.2013 could not be served upon her. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Sri Manoj Kumar, the husband of the petitioner, used to stay with her wife at school and used to interfere in school activities. On 11.04.2013, allegation of molestation was made by Ms. Koshmi Kumari, a student of Class VIII of the said school, against which, the students of the school went on hunger strike and on the interference of higher authorities the said strike came to an end. On 11.04.2013, allegation of molestation was made by Ms. Koshmi Kumari, a student of Class VIII of the said school, against which, the students of the school went on hunger strike and on the interference of higher authorities the said strike came to an end. For the said allegation an F.I.R was instituted against the husband of the petitioner bearing Sadar P.S. Case No. 355 of 2013 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice, which on being not satisfactory, the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra decided to terminate the petitioner from services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the services of the petitioner was on contractual basis, hence, in view of the seriousness of allegation, which has been proved, just punishment has been awarded. 5. On bare perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that at first vide Memo dated 22.04.2013, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner, containing two-fold allegation that her husband molested one of the students of school and the students of the school also complained against the petitioner of serious nature. From the pleadings available on record, it further appears that an F.I.R was lodged against the husband of the petitioner for the alleged molestation. From perusal of show cause it further appears that another fold of the show cause is vague as there is statement there is complaint by the students but what type of complaint is there is not mentioned so as to make the petitioner able to give her reply. From the pleadings available on record and on perusal of Annexure 1, it further appears that the said memo was served on the petitioner on 30.04.2013. In the meantime, vide letter no. 688 dated 29.04.2013, giving reference to show cause notice dated 22.04.2013, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge within 24 hours. But surprisingly, another letter no. 684 dated 29.04.2013 was served upon the petitioner, wherein besides the allegations mentioned in show cause dated 22.04.2013, several allegations were mentioned regarding her previous misconduct and without receiving the show cause reply, the respondents-authorities came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved. However, the petitioner was show caused as to why her services may not be terminated. However, the petitioner was show caused as to why her services may not be terminated. Meaning thereby, the respondents-authorities were per-determined to terminate the petitioner, as without appreciating the defence put forth by the petitioner, it came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved, hence, nothing remained to be replied by the petitioner. The petitioner may be a contractual employee but before dispensing with the services of the petitioner fundamental principles of natural justice must be followed, which in the case at hand, is lacking, hence, the impugned order is vulnerable on the point of violation of principles of natural justices. View of this Courts gets fortified by the decision of Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Nar Singh Pal as reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 . In the case at hand, the respondents-authorities has already taken a decision for termination of services and the subsequent enquiry was only a camouflage/ subterfuge/an eye-wash, therefore, the entire proceeding appears to have been done in a perfunctory manner visiting the petitioner with major punishment like dismissal from services. However, for the instance of molestation, a criminal case is running against the husband of the petitioner. 6. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in services forthwith. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents-authorities are at liberty to start a de novo enquiry and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.