Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1018 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-09

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure 2) by which the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Chatra has terminated the services of the petitioner, who was working as a para teacher. 2. The petitioner was selected for the post of para teacher by the Selection Committee. The selection was also approved by the appropriate authority and thereafter the petitioner joined in Upgraded Middle School, Gangpur as para teacher. He was working in the said post since 10.05.2004. The petitioner submits that on 10.03.2017, the petitioner was served with a show cause to which he was forced to reply on the same date and on 10.03.2017, itself, thereafter he was terminated from service without service of any alleged enquiry report. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been terminated on the basis of a complaint of one Punam Kumari, a para teacher of the same school, but, the said complaint was also not handed over to the petitioner. Petitioner’s main ground of challenge is that the impugned order is stigmatic and no proceeding was initiated. He further submits that the process is in violation of the principles of natural justice as on 10.03.2017, itself, the show cause was issued, which the petitioner received on the same day and he was forced to give a reply on the same day and on the same day, he was terminated. He submits that the process, which has been adopted, clearly suggests that the respondents were premeditated to dismiss the petitioner from service. He submits that from the records, the petitioner could come to know that an enquiry was conducted, but, surprisingly, neither the enquiry report nor the complaint was served upon the petitioner. He submits that there was rivalry between Punam Kumari and this petitioner, for which petitioner had filed Gidhour Police Station Case No.6 of 2017 and there is a counter case also filed by said Punam Kumari being Gidhour Police Station Case No.7 of 2017. He submits that the petitioner was deputed to Upgraded Primary School, Umadhaki. Thereafter, while he was working there, on 10.03.2017, this entire act of removal of the petitioner had taken place on a flimsy ground by merely stating that the atmosphere of the school was getting polluted because of the petitioner. 3. He submits that the petitioner was deputed to Upgraded Primary School, Umadhaki. Thereafter, while he was working there, on 10.03.2017, this entire act of removal of the petitioner had taken place on a flimsy ground by merely stating that the atmosphere of the school was getting polluted because of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner being a teacher, got indulged in the activities, which are not appropriate for a teacher. He submitted that the allegations, which are leveled by Punam Kumari against the petitioner was enquired into and the same was found to be correct and thereafter a decision was taken to remove the petitioner. He submits that at the instance of Punam Kumari, an FIR was instituted against the petitioner for allegedly committing an offence under Sections 341, 325, 354, 349, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Punam Kumari also complained to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on which an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of immoral turpitude and of committing heinous crime, which is unbecoming of a teacher, thus, he was removed. It is admitted that the notice to show cause dated 09.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner, which he received on 09.03.2017, but, while endorsing the receipt, had put a wrong date on it, i.e., 10.03.2017. Thereafter he was removed. There is another complaint against the petitioner that he had affixed his photograph beside the lady teacher, Punam Kumari, which is also serious. 4. After hearing the parties, I find that the main contention of the petitioner is that removal of the petitioner is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice as neither the enquiry report was served to him nor the enquiry was conducted in his presence. Further, his case is that on the same day, an enquiry was conducted, the show cause notice was issued, the reply was sought for and on the same day he was dismissed from service. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a proper departmental proceeding should have been initiated before passing the impugned order. 5. The ground taken by the State is that as the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a teacher and the situation in the school and the locality became tense, the decision was taken to remove the petitioner immediately. The impugned order of removal is dated 10.03.2017 bearing memo No.240. 5. The ground taken by the State is that as the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a teacher and the situation in the school and the locality became tense, the decision was taken to remove the petitioner immediately. The impugned order of removal is dated 10.03.2017 bearing memo No.240. The said order speaks that an enquiry was conducted on the allegations leveled by Smt. Punam Kumari, para teacher against the petitioner and during enquiry, it was found that the allegations are proved. Thus, to maintain the educational environment of the school, petitioner is removed. This is the sum and substance of the dismissal order. Before this dismissal order, a notice was issued to the petitioner. The said notice, though is dated 09.03.2017, but, there is an endorsement by the petitioner that the same was received on 10.03.2017. I had gone through the original file also, which was called for and found that in the original notice also the same endorsement is there, suggesting that the notice was received by the petitioner on 10.03.2017. The reply to the said show cause notice is also on record. No date has been mentioned in the said reply, but the reference of the show cause notice has been mentioned, which suggests that the reply is in relation to the aforesaid show cause notice. Thus, it is quite clear that the reply is also of the same date. Thus, it is clear that the notice was issued on 10.03.2017, was received by the petitioner on 10.03.2017, he was made to reply on 10.03.2017 and his dismissal order was also on 10.03.2017. It is the case of the respondents that an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry it was found that the allegations leveled against the petitioner was correct and thus, he was removed. The petitioner has brought on record the enquiry report. Surprisingly, this enquiry report is also dated 10.03.2017. I find from the enquiry report that on the same date, i.e., on 10.03.2017, a four member committee made an inspection and the report was prepared. The petitioner has brought on record the enquiry report. Surprisingly, this enquiry report is also dated 10.03.2017. I find from the enquiry report that on the same date, i.e., on 10.03.2017, a four member committee made an inspection and the report was prepared. The original file also shows that the enquiry was conducted on 10.03.2017, the show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 10.03.2017, the reply was also submitted on 10.03.2017, the decision for dismissal was taken by the authority on 10.03.2017, the approval of the higher officer, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner was also on the very same date, i.e., on 10.03.2017 and termination order is also dated 10.03.2017. From the record, I find that the petitioner was not a party to the said enquiry. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner was ever asked to appear in the enquiry. Further, I find that the said enquiry report was also not furnished to the petitioner. Further, it is also clear that on 10.03.2017 itself the enquiry was conducted, the show cause notice was served to the petitioner, he was made to reply on the same date and his dismissal order was proposed on the same date, on 10.03.2017 itself his dismissal order was approved and he was dismissed. The entire process was conducted at a speed, which is comparable to the speed of lightening. 6. From these facts, one can easily conclude that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner to defend himself. Not only justice needs to be done, but it must also seem to be done. In this case justice was not done nor it seems to have been done. Not only opportunity has to be given, but that opportunity must be sufficient. The petitioner was a para teacher, thus, it was not necessary to hold a departmental enquiry as he was appointed on contract, but, when a serious allegation is leveled and enquiry was conducted, propriety demanded that the copy of the enquiry report should have been handed over to the petitioner and sufficient time should have been granted to him to defend himself. The speed in which the entire process was conducted is astonishing. In this case, the speed has trampled justice. The speed in which the entire process was conducted is astonishing. In this case, the speed has trampled justice. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was not given opportunity to defend himself in a proper manner, thus the impugned order needs to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order removing the petitioner from service, as contained in Memo No.240 dated 10.03.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Chatra (respondent No.3) to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, annexing copy of the enquiry report and the complaint and give him sufficient time to defend himself and thereafter giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass a reasoned order after taking into consideration the defence of the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear or fail to avail the opportunity granted to him, the respondents may proceed ex-parte. 7. It is expected that the entire process should be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the respondent – District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Chatra. 8. This writ application stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.