Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 823 (JHR)

Md. Mohsin v. State of Jharkhand

2020-09-01

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 816 dated 07.3.2013 issued by the Respondent No. 5, whereby, the services of the petitioner has been terminated by cancelling his contract from the post of Para Teacher of Upgraded Primary School, Tilbhitta Block, Pakur. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein, in Para 6 it has been stated as under: “6. That it is relevant to mention here that the post of Para Teacher is temporary in nature and the Block Development Officer being the Chairman of the Block Education Committee approves the process of selection done by Village Education Committee of the School. In the present case though the petitioner was selected through the said process but subsequently it was brought to the knowledge of the Block Education Committee that the petitioner have indulged in Criminal activities such as defalcation of food grain of MDM scheme. It is further noticed that petitioner as well as his brother namely Sheikh Md. Matin who is also a para teacher of the same school duly selected by the same process have indulged in Criminal activities including the outraging the modesty of a lady teacher namely Sunita Bhagat of the same school, as such under the Chairmanship of the Block Development Officer a meeting was held on 04.03.2013 and it was detected that the petitioner has been made an accused in P.S. Case No. 49/2013 dated 17.02.2013 and are involved in Criminal Case as such, cancelled the contract of both the brothers. It is further pertinent to mention here that the duties of a teacher is to build a good moral character of the pupil and if a teacher is to build a good moral character of the pupil and if a teacher himself indulges in criminal activities and cases such as outraging the modesty of a lady teacher how he can teach the students to be a good moral character person. So considering that aspects the Block Education committee have rightly cancelled the contract of the petitioner and accordingly Block Education Officer has issued Office order vide memo no. So considering that aspects the Block Education committee have rightly cancelled the contract of the petitioner and accordingly Block Education Officer has issued Office order vide memo no. 816 dated 07.03.2013 and instructed to comply the said office order with immediate effect for the cancellation of contract of the petitioner as para teacher in the concerned school.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before termination, no show-cause notice was given as such, the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the State reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the counter affidavit, which has not been controverted by the petitioner either by filing rejoinder or by way of argument before this Court, it appears that though the petitioner was selected through a valid process, but subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Block Education Committee that the petitioner had indulged in criminal activities such as defalcation of food grain of MDM scheme and also the crime of outraging the modesty of a lady teacher along with his brother for which a criminal case was also instituted and only due to these reasons, under the Chairmanship of Block Development Officer, a meeting was held on 04.3.2013 and the contract of the petitioner as well as his brother were cancelled. 7. Considering the nature of allegations as against the petitioner, I do not want to interfere with the impugned order. I am in full agreement with the contention of the respondent state that if a teacher himself indulges in criminal activities and cases such as outraging the modesty of a lady teacher, how he can teach the students to be of good moral character person. It goes without saying that the job of petitioner was totally contractual in nature as such, there is no illegality in terminating the contract by the Respondent No. 5. As a result, the instant application is dismissed.