ORDER : In the year 2002, respondents framed a Scheme namely “the Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme, 2003” (hereinafter, ‘Scheme’) for the recruitment of Primary Assistant Teachers. Very aim of Scheme was to provide free and compulsory education to all the children in the age group of 6-14 years. In terms of Scheme, Gram Panchayats were made competent to select a person to work as Primary Assistant Teachers in the schools situate in their respective jurisdictions. 2. In the year 2006, the petitioner was appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher by Gram Panchayat Kiari Gundhah, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh after having been selected by the duly constituted Committee, to teach the students of Government Primary School Pab-III, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. After her initial appointment in the year 2006, petitioner was allowed to work as Primary Assistant Teacher continuously till the year 2009. 3. On 8.6.2009, Vigilance Officials, after having received complaints, regarding teaching in the schools by the persons, other than the Primary Assistant Teachers appointed by the Gram Panchayats concerned, visited various schools including Government Primary School Pab-III, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, where the petitioner stood appointed as a Primary Assistant Teacher. Vigilance officials during their visit found the petitioner absent from the school and in her place, a person namely Jangli Ram was found to be teaching the students in the school concerned. Vide communication dated 10.6.2009, (Annexure P-6), Deputy Director Elementary Education, Sirmaur, while intimating the petitioner that an Inquiry is contemplated/pending against her for dereliction of duties, asked her not to come to school with immediate effect till further orders. 4. A memorandum of articles of charge (Annexures P-8 and P-9, Pp 51-56) was issued to the petitioner. Following charges came to be framed against the petitioner: Article-I That the said Smt. Anita Devi, Primary Assistant Teacher was found absent from her duties on 8th June, 2009, which is totally misconduct or mis-behaviour and sheer violation of clause 4(iii) of the agreement executed by her under PAT Scheme, 2003 & clause 5/j/(iii) of the H.P. Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) scheme, 2003. Article-II That the said Smt. Anita Devi, PAT, GPS, Pab-III has not taught in the school for quite some time and has kept one Sh. Article-II That the said Smt. Anita Devi, PAT, GPS, Pab-III has not taught in the school for quite some time and has kept one Sh. Jangli Ram for teaching work in her place by paying Rs.1000-12000 per month by her, which tantamount to breach of trust and misconduct on the part of said Smt. Anita Devi and violation of various clauses of PAT scheme 2003 clause 5/j(iii) of the H.P. Prathmik Sahayak Adhyapak/ Primary Assistant Teacher (PAT) scheme, 2003. 5. Petitioner herein filed a detailed reply to the Articles of Charge (Annexure P-10), denying all the charges against her. However, the Department did not find the reply of the petitioner to be satisfactory and ordered for an Inquiry against her. Inquiry officer, vide Inquiry report (Annexure P-12), held the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against her and accordingly, recommended to the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate action against the petitioner. Additional Director Elementary Education, called for reply from the petitioner against the Inquiry report vide communication dated 3.12.2009. 6. Petitioner, vide communication (Annexure P-13) filed a detailed reply to the show cause issued by the Disciplinary Authority, who subsequently vide order dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure P-14) directed Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Kiari Gundah, Development Block Shillai, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh to cancel the contract of the petitioner. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kiari Gundhah, while replying to communication dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure P-14) apprised Deputy Director Elementary Education, that the enquiries made by Gram Panchayat have revealed that the petitioner herein was sent for CRG teacher training at BRC Bakras with effect from 1.6.2009 to 6.6.2009 (Saturday). On 6.6.2009, evening, she found her infant child ill. The condition of the child aggravated on 7.6.2009 morning hence, she took him to Andheri, where her husband was residing, for treatment at Ayurvedic Dispensary and care alongwith her husband. Besides above, Gram Panchayat Pradhan also stated in the communication supra that clause 2(i) of Notification dated 27.8.2003, provides for one casual leave for every month put in service to the Primary Assistant Teachers. He claimed that the petitioner had sufficient leave to her credit. He also stated in the communication supra that clause 3 of the Scheme provides that if there is absence on the part of a teacher, in that case, said teacher shall not be entitled for remuneration for the period of absence. He claimed that the petitioner had sufficient leave to her credit. He also stated in the communication supra that clause 3 of the Scheme provides that if there is absence on the part of a teacher, in that case, said teacher shall not be entitled for remuneration for the period of absence. On the top of everything, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat vide communication supra claimed that being the appointing authority, it is domain of Gram Panchayat to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Primary Assistant Teachers. 7. Apart from communication supra, Gram Panchayat concerned also passed resolution dated 5.7.2009 (Annexure P-15) resolving therein that the petitioner herein be re-appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher but since no decision ever came to be taken by the office of Deputy Director Elementary Education, with regard to re-appointment of the petitioner, after issuance of communication dated 5.4.2010 (Annexure P-15) by the Gram Panchayat concerned in reply to communication dated 16.3.2010 sent by Deputy Director Elementary Education, (Annexure P-14), petitioner remained out of job. 8. Apart from the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, an FIR was registered against the petitioner and police after completion of investigation, presented challan in the competent court of law against petitioner under S. 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 33 of the HP PSCP Act and Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 31.8.2013, found the petitioner not guilty of the charges framed against her and accordingly acquitted her. 9. After termination of services, the petitioner approached this court in the instant proceedings, which was transferred to erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and after abolishment of the Tribunal, petition was again transferred to this court, where it was re-registered as CWPOA No. 3083 of 2019, praying therein for the following main relief(s): “Order dated 10.6.2009 passed by respondent No.3, show cause notice dated 11.6.2009 issued by respondent No.2, memorandum of charge-sheet issued by respondent No. 2 and respondent No.3, inquiry report dated 3.12.2009, order dated 9.3.2010 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 16.3.2010 passed by respondent No.3 may kindly be set aside and quashed and the petitioner may be allowed to work as Primary Assistant Teacher in Govt. Primary School, Pab-III (Bakras), District Sirmaur, H.P.” 10. Primary School, Pab-III (Bakras), District Sirmaur, H.P.” 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that person namely Jangli Ram, who was allegedly found teaching the students in place of the petitioner, in the school concerned, stood already engaged in the school concerned, as a Remedial Teacher, at the time of inspection by Vigilance officials, as is evident from paragraphs-9 and 12 of the reply filed by respondent No.4 (p. 128) PSince, the person Jangli Ram, already stood appointed in the school concerned, as a Remedial Teacher, it is not understood on what basis, Inquiry officer, arrived at a conclusion that during visit by the vigilance officials, said Jangli Ram was found to be teaching students, in place of the petitioner, who was appointed as Primary Assistant Teacher by the Gram Panchayat concerned. 11. Moreover, this court finds from the record that Gram Panchayat, which had appointed petitioner as Primary Assistant Teachers, while responding to communication dated 16.3.2010 issued by Deputy Director Elementary Education, whereby Gram Panchayat was directed to cancel the agreement of the petitioner, vide communication dated 5.4.2010, had categorically apprised Deputy Director Elementary Education with regard to Inquiry conducted by the Gram Panchayat, wherein it was revealed that on the date of alleged incident, petitioner was absent on 8.6.2009, because of illness of her infant child. Besides above, Gram Panchayat vide aforesaid communication also raised issue with regard to competence of the Deputy Director Elementary Education to order cancellation of contract inter se petitioner and the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat categorically raised issue with regard to its competence to appoint the person as Primary Assistant Teacher as well as its authority to cancel the appointment but since no reply, if any, ever came to be given by Deputy Director Elementary Education to the aforesaid communication issued by the Gram Panchayat, petitioner was forced to remain out of job for no fault on her part. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, specifically took note of the statement made by PW-20, Jangli Ram, who deposed that he was engaged as a Remedial Teacher in Government Primary School, Pab-III, for three months on 31.1.2009 and he was engaged by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. In the criminal case registered against the petitioner, learned Special Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, specifically took note of the statement made by PW-20, Jangli Ram, who deposed that he was engaged as a Remedial Teacher in Government Primary School, Pab-III, for three months on 31.1.2009 and he was engaged by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat. Since the prosecution was unable to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in her examination-in-chief, learned Special Judge, on the basis of evidence led on record, concluded in judgment of acquittal that there is no evidence on record to show that services of Jangli Ram were hired by petitioner to teach in her place. 12. Though, learned Special Judge, while acquitting the petitioner recorded in para-24 of the judgment that the prosecution has failed to connect accused Rajinder and Anita with commission of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt but if entire judgment is perused in its entirety, it can be safely inferred/concluded that the learned court below, after being convinced and satisfied that there is no evidence to show that Jangli Ram was hired by petitioner to teach in her place, proceeded to acquit the accused/petitioner, meaning thereby that her acquittal was honorable and not on technical grounds. 13. Inquiry report clearly reveals that the witnesses adduced by the petitioner in her defence categorically deposed that she remained absent from school on 8.6.2009, but there is nothing in their statements suggestive of the fact that Jangli Ram was hired by her during this period, to teach the students in her place. No doubt, in cross-examination, Dharam Singh, stated that Jangli Ram was engaged as Remedial Teacher for 90 days, but Partap Chauhan, PW-1 stated that Jangli Ram, Remedial Teacher though was engaged upto 31.3.2009 for 90 days but continued to teach in school beyond that period. No doubt, in cross-examination, Dharam Singh, stated that Jangli Ram was engaged as Remedial Teacher for 90 days, but Partap Chauhan, PW-1 stated that Jangli Ram, Remedial Teacher though was engaged upto 31.3.2009 for 90 days but continued to teach in school beyond that period. Though the perusal of Inquiry report reveals that prosecution was successful in proving that on 8.6.2009, petitioner remained absent from school, without getting leave sanctioned, but definitely there is no concrete evidence suggestive of the fact that during this period, petitioner hired Jangli Ram to teach students in her place and as such, direction given by the Deputy Director Elementary Education to the Gram Panchayat concerned to cancel the contract of the petitioner, cannot be said to be justifiable, more particularly, when concerned Gram Panchayat took a stand that in the Inquiry conducted by it, petitioner has not been found guilty. 14. Leaving everything aside, authority to remove the petitioner from the post of Primary Assistant Teacher lies with the Gram Panchayat being the appointing authority and as such, there was no occasion for the Deputy Director Elementary Education to initiate Inquiry against the petitioner. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to judgment of Division Bench rendered in case titled as Surender Singh Chauhan vs. State of H.P. and others, LPA No. 392 of 2011 decided 23.4.2015, wherein it has been held that State Government at the most could ask Gram Panchayat to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner but could not initiate the same itself. 16. Before referring to aforesaid judgment, it may be taken note of the fact that Shri Surender Singh Chauhan, petitioner in the case supra, was also Primary Assistant Teacher appointed by Gram Panchayat and was also found absent from duties by Vigilance Department from the School and precise allegation against him was that during his absence from the school, he had hired some person i.e. Inder Singh, to teach the students in her place. In that case also, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Deputy Director Elementary Education and direction was issued to Gram Panchayat to cancel agreement of the petitioner in that case. In that case also, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Deputy Director Elementary Education and direction was issued to Gram Panchayat to cancel agreement of the petitioner in that case. But as has been taken note hereinabove, Division Bench in Surender Singh Chauhan (supra), held that though respondents are competent to exercise supervisory control but could not itself initiate disciplinary proceedings, rather, could have only asked Gram Panchayat concerned, to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Division Bench of this Court held in the judgment (supra) as under: “11. The writ-petitioner is admittedly an employee of the 3rd respondent. Of course, he was being paid out of the grant released by the respondent-State in favour of the said respondent. The Scheme Annexure P-1 framed by the State for recruitment of the Primary Assistant Teachers has been discussed in detail by learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge, therefore, there is no need of its elaboration here. Para 10 of the scheme makes it crystal clear that it is the Gram Panchayat concerned, the employer of Primary Assistant Teachers and also the disciplinary authority. True it is that the remuneration to Primary Assistant Teachers under the scheme is being paid by the Gram Panchayat out of the funds granted by the State Government. The release of funds, however, not authorize the Government to initiate the disciplinary action against a Primary Assistant Teacher, if he is found to have mis-conducted and failed to maintain discipline in discharge of her duties. Since the writ-petitioner has been served with show cause notice by the 2nd respondent and even it is at the behest of the said respondent, disciplinary proceedings were ordered to be initiated against her and it is the said respondent, imposed upon the petitioner the penalty of cancellation of the agreement, he executed at the time of her appointment as Primary Assistant Teacher. In our considered opinion, such a course of action is dehors the provisions under the scheme, because as per the same appointing and disciplinary authority of the writ-petitioner is the Gram Panchayat. The 1st and 2nd respondents at the most could have recommended the action to be taken against the writ-petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. 12. Otherwise also, from the inquiry report Annexure P-10 (Colly.), it is only absence of the writ-petitioner from duty on 08.06.2009 is proved and nothing beyond that. The 1st and 2nd respondents at the most could have recommended the action to be taken against the writ-petitioner by the Gram Panchayat. 12. Otherwise also, from the inquiry report Annexure P-10 (Colly.), it is only absence of the writ-petitioner from duty on 08.06.2009 is proved and nothing beyond that. It is not proved nor Inquiry Officer concluded that the services of Shri Inder Singh were hired by the writ-petitioner to teach the students in her place on payment basis. Shri Inder Singh as per report rather was teaching the students in the school regularly for two hours w.e.f. September, 2008. The certificates Annexures A-2 and A-3 to the present appeal make it crystal clear that said Shri Inder Singh was working as an “Education Volunteer” in the village. He while appearing as PW-21 during the course of trial of Corruption Case No. 63-CC/7 of 2011, tells us that when Kumari Phulma, an Education Volunteer appointed in Government Primary School, Kuraya left the school, it is he who started imparting education to the students under an NGO, namely ‘Adhaar’. Thus, the services of Inder Singh were not hired by the petitioner to teach the students in her place and rather he was teaching the students in the school being “volunteer” of an NGO. The observations in the impugned judgment that said Shri Inder Singh during the course of disciplinary inquiry and trial supported the petitioner, seem to be factually incorrect. 13. The writ-petitioner, no doubt, was found absent from duties on 08.06.2009. The OPD ticket of Community Health Centre, Shillai Annexure P-4, however, reveals that her daughter was ill and medically checked up on that day. The writ-petitioner can reasonably be believed to have accompanied her daughter to the hospital. Although, the application he allegedly sent to the school for sanction of one day’s leave has not been produced on record and Shri Netar Singh, JBT, Incharge of the school during the course of disciplinary proceedings has stated that the writ-petitioner was not on duty on that day, however, for her absence that too only for a day, such a harsh and deterrent penalty should have been imposed is a question which heavily weigh with us. The alleged misconduct was not of such a nature warranting the punishment of cancellation of the agreement and ultimately removal from service. The alleged misconduct was not of such a nature warranting the punishment of cancellation of the agreement and ultimately removal from service. When the charge that the writ-petitioner was not attending the school and rather hired the services of Shri Inder Singh to teach the students in her place is not at all proved, a lenient view of the matter could have also been taken. 14. The criminal case registered against the writ petitioner and others stands decided by leaned Special Judge, Sirmour vide judgment dated 31.08.2013, a copy whereof has been placed on record of the present appeal. The charge has not been proved against either of the accused and they including the petitioner now stand acquitted. This development having taken place during the pendency of the present appeal also weigh with us and in our considered opinion, the writ-petitioner never hired the service of Shri Inder Singh on payment basis to teach the students in the school in her place. 15. The 3rd respondent is satisfied with the work and conduct of the writ-petitioner as Primary Assistant Teacher and even ready and willing to extend the contract entered upon with her further. A Resolution Annexure P-12/A to the writ petition has also been passed by the said respondent in this regard. In reply to the writ petition the said respondent has supported the case of the writ-petitioner. As a matter of fact, it is the 2nd respondent, who has directed the 3rd respondent to cancel the agreement executed with the writ-petitioner so that he can be removed from the school. Reference in this regard can be made to the letters dated 16.03.2010 and 23.04.2010, Annexure P-12 to the writ petition. We have already said at the outset that the 1st and 2nd respondents being not the appointing or disciplinary authority of the writ-petitioner could have not initiated disciplinary proceedings against her nor to impose any penalty including the penalty of cancellation of the agreement he executed and ultimately removal from service. 16. True it is that Article 21-A of the Constitution casts a duty upon the State to provide education to all children below 14 years of age. Thus, it is also the duty of the State to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided and efficient, dedicated and sincere faculty is deployed in the schools. 16. True it is that Article 21-A of the Constitution casts a duty upon the State to provide education to all children below 14 years of age. Thus, it is also the duty of the State to ensure that adequate infrastructure is provided and efficient, dedicated and sincere faculty is deployed in the schools. It is to fulfill such constitutional goal; the respondent-State has framed the scheme for deployment of Primary Assistant Teachers in primary schools. Under the scheme, it is the duty of the State to grant funds for payment of remuneration etc., to the Primary Assistant Teachers and as regards their appointment, supervisory control and disciplinary action, if found to have mis-conducted, is a task assigned to the concerned Gram Panchayat under the scheme. Therefore, as already said, at the most, the respondent department could have only asked the Gram Panchayat to hold inquiry against the writ-petitioner so that if found guilty, punished that too by the Gram Panchayat. 17. We feel that learned Single Judge having own notions that in remote areas, the teachers did not function in the schools and rather used to engage the students or other teachers to teach in their place as well as swayed by the allegations leveled in the FIR against the writ-petitioner, which ultimately turned to be false and that it is the respondent-State which provides funds by way of grant to the Gram Panchyat for engagement of Primary Assistant Teachers has concluded that the respondent-State is competent to exercise supervisory control on them and to direct the Gram Panchayat concerned to terminate their services. But, our views are at variance with that of learned Single Judge, because in the case in hand, as we already said, the State Government at the most could have asked the Gram Panchayat to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, but could not have initiated the disciplinary action itself as well as by way of penalty and issued a direction to the 3rd respondent to cancel the agreement entered upon with her. The impugned communication Annexure P-12 demonstrates that the respondent-State has not left any option with the 3rd respondent except for resorting to the cancellation of the agreement and ultimately removal of the writ-petitioner from the school. It is a separate matter that the 3rd respondent has not yet cancelled the agreement as nothing to this effect has come on record. 18. It is a separate matter that the 3rd respondent has not yet cancelled the agreement as nothing to this effect has come on record. 18. We are, however, not in agreement with Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate that from 11.07.2011, the writ-petitioner is regularly attending the school or teaching the students because nothing to this effect has come on record. Had it been so, the writ petitioner could have produced on record some contemporaneous record including certificate from the teacher incharge of the school in this regard. The bald assertions that too made during the course of arguments are not sufficient to hold that the writ-petitioner is regularly attending the school and teaching the students from 11.07.2011 onwards, hence entitled to the payment of remuneration. 19. The facts, therefore, remain that the writ petitioner was ordered not to attend the school vide letter dated 10th June, 2009 Annexure P-7. Therefore, it would not be improper to conclude that he is not on duty w.e.f. 11.06.2009 till date. Since the judgment under challenge, according to us, is not legally and factually sustainable and as such deserves to be quashed, therefore, the impugned order Annexure P-12 and also a direction issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 10th June, 2009 Annexure P-7 not to attend her duties in the school being illegal and unsustainable deserves to be quashed. However, the writ-petitioner is only entitled to regularization of the period w.e.f 11.06.2009 till joining of duties by her consequent upon this judgment notionally i.e. without payment of any remuneration. We, however, hold her entitled for reinstatement as Primary Assistant Teacher with all consequential benefits with immediate effect i.e. the day he joins her duties in the school. 20. In view of what has been said hereinabove, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3461/2010 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. The period w.e.f. 11.06.2009 till reinstatement of the writ-petitioner, consequent upon this judgment will be regularized by treating her in service notionally. The writ-petitioner will stand re-instated as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Kuraya, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour with all consequential benefits on the day he produces a certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent. The period w.e.f. 11.06.2009 till reinstatement of the writ-petitioner, consequent upon this judgment will be regularized by treating her in service notionally. The writ-petitioner will stand re-instated as Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Kuraya, Tehsil Shillai, District Sirmour with all consequential benefits on the day he produces a certified copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall ensure that the grant-in-aid is released regularly to the 3rd respondent for defraying the due and admissible remuneration to the writ-petitioner under the Scheme. 17. Since, in the case at hand, prosecution in disciplinary proceedings has not been able to prove that the petitioner herein had hired Shri Jangli Ram to teach students in her place, coupled with the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in the criminal proceedings, initiated against her, prayer made in the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 18. Consequently in view of detailed discussion made supra, as well as law taken note supra, present petition is allowed and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner against the post of Primary Assistant Teachers with effect from 10.6.2009, when she was asked not to come to the School. 19. Consequent upon reinstatement of the petitioner in terms of judgment herein, petitioner shall be entitled to regularization in terms of Scheme framed by the Government in this behalf, from due date, but on notional basis. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.