Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 748 (MP)

Bherulal Khichi v. School Education Department

2017-06-20

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-11) by which the respondent has denied the salary from the period 2.3.2012 to 28.9.2012. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the School Education Department. During his posting in the Government Primary School Parsuliakala Shajapur, he was served with a show-cause notice dated 18.4.2012 in which it has been alleged that he is unauthorisedly absent without any information since 2.3.2012 and his conduct is contrary to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and comes under the category of misconduct. By letter dated 24.9.2012 he has been directed to file reply failing which disciplinary action would be initiated. Since the petitioner did not file any reply vide order dated 29.9.2012, he was placed under suspension by the Additional Chief Executive Officer-Cum-District Education Officer. 3. Vide letter dated 30.10.2012 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in respect of the charge of unauthorised absence. Thereafter, vide order dated 6.12.2012, the order of suspension has been revoked by giving warning to remain cautious in future. His suspension has been revoked and he has been posted in Government Primary School Rawli. By letter dated 10.12.2012, the petitioner was directed to give joining and he was relieved to join Primary School Rawli. The petitioner gave joining on 10.12.2012. 4. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition No.7820/2013 seeking direction to the respondent to pay the arrears of full salary from the period 2.3.2010 to 3.10.2012 and suspension allowance for the period from 4.10.2012 to 10.12.2012. By order dated 10.7.2013 the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit representation mentioning the correct period for which he is entitled for arrears of salary and subsistence allowance. By order dated 11.11.2013 the District Education Officer Shajapur, has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that he is not entitled for salary for the period from 2.3.2010 to 28.9.2012 under the principle of 'no work no pay'. The suspension allowance has been paid vide Bill No.180 dated 26.10.2013. Being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2013 the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. The suspension allowance has been paid vide Bill No.180 dated 26.10.2013. Being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2013 the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. After notice, the respondent has filed the return stating that the departmental enquiry has been closed against the petitioner by giving warning for his past conduct with further direction not to repeat such attitude in future and consequently, the suspension has also been revoked. The respondent has rightly denied the salary to the petitioner under the principle of 'no work no pay' as the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the District Education Officer that he is continuously absent since 2.3.2012. Since the petitioner did not submit the reply to the show-cause notice, he was placed under suspension. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in which charge was framed that he is absent from the Institution since long, without any information and due to which, the educational work has been affected. In this charge sheet period of absence has not been mentioned. The charge is very vague in nature. The petitioner has neither admitted nor denied the charge. After the aforesaid charge sheet order dated 6.12.2012 was passed by which the suspension was revoked with the warning to the petitioner. In this order it is mentioned that reply was filed and opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The period of suspension was treated into the period of service for grant of all benefits. No order has been passed in respect of period of absence and payment of salary and other benefits and the petitioner was not paid the salary for the entire period of absence. 8. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent, the petitioner filed the writ petition claiming salary from 2.3.2010 to 3.10.2012. The respondent has rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the attendance of the petitioner is not recorded in the School record from the period of 2.3.2012 to 28.9.2012 i.e. 211 days. Reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner is not available on record. Along with the charge sheet, the copy of Attendance Register was not supplied to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has denied or admitted the charges are not on record. Reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner is not available on record. Along with the charge sheet, the copy of Attendance Register was not supplied to the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has denied or admitted the charges are not on record. However, in writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that he served sincerely and diligently. If the District Education Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for salary for 211 days then, he was“required to conduct a regular departmental enquiry. While dropping the enquiry initiated earlier against the petitioner, no finding has been recorded in respect of unauthorised absence therefore, impugned order dated 11.11.2013 is liable to be set aside. 9. Matter is remitted back to the District Education Officer with the direction to conduct a enquiry afresh if he do not want to pay the salary for the period of 211 days to the petitioner. That without recording specific finding that too after giving opportunity of hearing to him, salary cannot be denied to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid direction writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.