Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 451 (JHR)

Vinod Kumar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2020-03-06

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 3419 dated 12.10.2010 whereby the respondent No.4-District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro has passed an order of punishment against the petitioner. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 06.09.2013 passed in service appeal no. 38/2012, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order has been dismissed. 2. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by the State Government in the year 1994 on being declared qualified in competitive examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment of Assistant Teachers. After a long service, he was given the charge of Headmaster in Upgraded Middle School, Khudgadda in Bokaro. He was performing his duties honestly and diligently to the satisfaction of the respondents. However, on 07.06.2010 an inspection was held in the petitioner’s school by the Block Development Officer, Gomiya, which was done on the basis of complain made vide letter no. 35/6 dated 05.06.2010 by Gomiya Block President of Jharkhand Vikas Morcha. The petitioner was alleged for irregularity in building construction work and mid-day-meal, the stock register was not maintained up to date and even the attendance of students in the attendance register was incorrect. Further, it was alleged that the cereals of mid-day-meal as well as equipment of sports and music were kept at the residence of the petitioner instead of providing them to the students and respondent No. 5 recommended for transfer of the petitioner immediately to other school. Pursuant thereto, the DSE, Bokaro passed an order of suspension vide memo no. 2416 dated 22.06.2010, reiterating therein the allegation levelled against the petitioner by BDO, Gomia. Thereafter, Papatra ‘Ka’ was issued against the petitioner in which three charges were levelled against the petitioner viz.(i) Irregularity in civil work, (ii) Irregularity in Mid-Day-Meal Scheme, and ( iii.) Non-providing of the equipments of sports and instruments of music to the students under ‘Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan’. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 12.08.2010, denied all the charges and also stated therein that all allegations were made by some interested persons with support of a local leader of a political party and in coalition with the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 12.08.2010, denied all the charges and also stated therein that all allegations were made by some interested persons with support of a local leader of a political party and in coalition with the respondents. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the DSE, Bokaro on 16.08.2010, wherein the charges leveled against the petitioner were not found to be true and recommended for petitioner’s transfer to another school as he had been in the same school for last 15 to 16 years. However, the DSE, Bokaro, has passed punishment order after revoking suspension order vide memo no. 3419 dated 12.10.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Service Appeal No. 28/2012 before the Divisional Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag , but the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2013. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred. 3. Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of the respondents is beyond their jurisdiction. The construction work, which is an engineering work, cannot be taken up by a teacher as teachers are appointed for imparting the education not for construction of building and maintenance of midday- meal. The learned counsel for petitioner further submits that punishment order cannot be given beyond or more than the recommendation of inquiry officer. He further submits that prior to passing of suspension order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, neither any explanation nor any show cause notice was issued to him, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In the enquiry report, the charges leveled against the petitioner were not found to be true but respondent-DSE in most arbitrary manner without considering the same, imposed the punishment. He further submits that all the allegations were made by some interested persons with support of a local leader of a political party and in coalition with the respondents when their undue expectations were not fulfilled by the petitioner. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been clearly mentioned that in view of the circular dated 14.08.2003 issued by the Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, role of teacher in mid-day-meal has been restricted and ‘Saraswati Vahin’ has been formed for the purpose of midday- meal. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has been clearly mentioned that in view of the circular dated 14.08.2003 issued by the Department of Human Resource Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, role of teacher in mid-day-meal has been restricted and ‘Saraswati Vahin’ has been formed for the purpose of midday- meal. He further submits that construction of building is under taken by the school committee constituted for this purpose under supervision of an engineer and there is no misappropriation by the petitioner. Further he submits that the entire case is politically influenced. He places reliance on a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 . 4. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed as assistant teacher in 1994 and posted in upgraded middle school, Khudgadda in Bokaro and a complain was made before the BDO, Gomiya that there is irregularity in construction of school building and as such inspection was made, wherein it was found that there were several irregularities. Thereafter, he was suspended immediately. Further, he submits that in response to charges, petitioner filed a show cause, which was not found satisfactory and a detailed enquiry was held and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. Considering the enquiry report and other relevant facts, the DEO passed the order of minor punishment as contemplated under sub-rule (iii) of rule 8 of “Government Primary Teacher Transfer and Disciplinary Act Rule, 1994” and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference for the following facts and reasons:- i. The petitioner has been found guilty of the charges in the departmental proceeding by the Enquiry Officer. ii. The Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of minor punishment agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. iii. The punishment order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority in Service Appeal No. 28/2012 by the Divisional Commissioner. iv. ii. The Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of minor punishment agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. iii. The punishment order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority in Service Appeal No. 28/2012 by the Divisional Commissioner. iv. Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a full-fledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice and an ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. v. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Phulpari Kumari, reported in 2019 SCC Online 1563 has held thus: Interference with orders passed pursuant to departmental enquiry can only be in case of ‘no evidence’ sufficiency of evidence not within realm of judicial review. vi. This Court is in full agreement with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. vii. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to him as the same is not attracted in the instant case. 6. As a cumulative effect of the foresaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, no interference is warranted in the instant case and there is no merit in the instant case. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.