Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 355 (UTT)

Kishori Lal Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-10-20

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. 1. Petitioner was serving as Lecturer in a Government Aided Intermediate College, namely, Janta Inter College, Palli Khatli in District Pauri Garhwal, which is run by a Society and managed by elected Committee of Management. Post of Principal fell vacant in the said college and petitioner was given officiating charge as Principal. Ultimately, he was appointed as down grade Principal in the college, vide order dated 03.11.2012. Petitioner’s claim for salary for certain period is denied by the Additional Director on the ground that he did not serve the college during said period. 2. Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 469 of 2016, inter-alia, claiming salary for different period. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.10.2017, with liberty to him to file fresh writ petition. 3. In the present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the aside the decision taken by the Additional Director, Secondary Education, Garhwal Mandal Pauri vide meeting dated 06-10-2017 to the extent of declining the legitimate dues of the petitioner’s salary (as provided in the minutes of meeting dated 6-10-17, annexed as Annexure no. 24 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release the dues of salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 09-06-2016 to 28-09-2016 and from 30-09-2016 to 6-10-2017.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on false and motivated complaints, with forged signatures of girl students, petitioner was attached in the office of Block Education Officer vide order dated 01.09.2015, and thereafter in the office of Chief Education Officer vide order dated 03.09.2015 passed by respondent no. 4. He further submits that Enquiry Committee constituted to look into the allegations came to the conclusion that the complaints were made due to internal politics in the college and the allegations made against the petitioner are without any substance. 5. In view of petitioner’s exoneration by the Enquiry Committee, respondent no. 4 passed an order on 04.04.2016, whereby petitioner’s attachment was cancelled and he was relieved from the office of Chief Education Officer for joining duties in his college. 6. Against the relieving order, passed by respondent no. 4, petitioner made a representation to the Additional Director (respondent no. 5. In view of petitioner’s exoneration by the Enquiry Committee, respondent no. 4 passed an order on 04.04.2016, whereby petitioner’s attachment was cancelled and he was relieved from the office of Chief Education Officer for joining duties in his college. 6. Against the relieving order, passed by respondent no. 4, petitioner made a representation to the Additional Director (respondent no. 3) on 06.04.2016, which was decided by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 09.06.2016, by holding that order dated 04.04.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 does not need any interference and competent authority was directed to release petitioner’s outstanding salary, within a month. 7. Dissatisfied with the order passed by Additional Director, petitioner filed another representation on 10.06.2016, seeking review of the order dated 09.06.2016. Fate of said representation is not known. It is a fact that petitioner was relieved for joining duties in his college on 04.04.2016, however, in view of petitioner’s representation to the Additional Director, his relieving was kept in abeyance and petitioner was relieved from the Office of District Education Officer only on 09.06.2016. 8. It is not in dispute that salary for the period during which petitioner remained attached, in terms of the orders passed by respondent no. 4 on 01.09.2015 and 03.09.2015, has been released to him. Now, dispute is regarding salary for the period between 09.06.2016 to 28.09.2016 and 30.09.2016 to 06.10.2017, i.e. after petitioner’s relieving from the office of Chief Education Officer. 9. The Additional Director, Pauri passed an order on 06.10.2017 regarding salary and held that since petitioner did not report for duty in the college after Additional Director’s order on his representation, therefore, he is not entitled to salary between 09.06.2016 to 06.10.2017, except one day i.e. 29.09.2016 when he visited the college and marked his attendance. 10. The said order passed by Additional Director is challenged in the present writ petition. 11. Stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is that on 04.04.2016, Chief Education Officer relieved petitioner with direction to join duties in his college, but, petitioner approached Additional Director against the relieving order, and the Additional Director vide order dated 09.06.2016 directed him to comply with the order of Chief Education Officer. 2, 3 and 4 is that on 04.04.2016, Chief Education Officer relieved petitioner with direction to join duties in his college, but, petitioner approached Additional Director against the relieving order, and the Additional Director vide order dated 09.06.2016 directed him to comply with the order of Chief Education Officer. It is stated in the counter affidavit that thereafter petitioner visited the college only once on 29.09.2016 and after marking his attendance in the register, he left without meeting anyone. 12. One letter issued by Authorized Controller of the college on 18.03.2017 is enclosed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit, in which, it is mentioned that petitioner visited the college only on 29.09.2016 for marking attendance and instead of joining duties, he is indulging in unnecessary correspondence. By the said letter, Authorized Controller asked petitioner to show cause as to how he can get salary without discharging duties and it was further stated in the said letter that petitioner’s failure to respond to said letter shall lead to an inference that he has acted contrary to the Conduct Rules. 13. Neither in the writ petition nor in the rejoinder affidavit, the reply, if any, given by petitioner to the letter/show cause notice dated 18.03.2017, issued by Authorized Controller is enclosed. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner was also not in a position to make any statement whether petitioner gave reply to the said letter. Thus, it can safely be inferred that petitioner did not submit reply to the letter/notice dated 18.03.2017. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that all the office bearers of Committee of Management of the concerned college, including Manager, were inimical towards petitioner, who created problems to ensure that petitioner is not able to resume duties in the college. However, Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit is a letter issued by Authorized Controller, which holds petitioner responsible for not turning up for duties in the college. In the said letter, Authorized Controller has questioned that without serving the institution, how salary can be paid to petitioner. Authorized Controller is an independent person appointed by the Additional Director (Education) to look after the management of a College either upon expiry of term of elected Committee of Management or when the elected Committee of Management is suspended or superseded for some reason. 15. Authorized Controller is an independent person appointed by the Additional Director (Education) to look after the management of a College either upon expiry of term of elected Committee of Management or when the elected Committee of Management is suspended or superseded for some reason. 15. Learned State Counsel points out that as per practice prevailing in State of Uttarakhand, a Government Officer, serving on a Class-II post of Principal, Government Inter College is appointed as Authorized Controller to look after the day-to-day affairs of a Government Aided Intermediate College, till re-election/restoration of its Committee of Management. Thus, he submits that the Authorized Controller can have no malice or ill-will against petitioner, as he is an outsider with no local connection and once the Committee of Management is put in place, he leaves the office. Learned State Counsel, thus submits that Authorized Controller, who wrote letter to petitioner on 18.03.2017, can have no ill-will against petitioner and the said letter reflect correct state of affairs prevailing in the college. 16. We find substance in the contention raised by learned State Counsel. Contents of Authorized Controller’s letter cannot be said to be biased. It reveals that after being relieved from Office of Chief Education Officer, petitioner did not report for duties in the college. It further reveals that petitioner visited the college on 29.09.2016 and on that day too, he returned after marking attendance in register. The Authorized Controller called upon the petitioner to show cause why he is shirking away from his duty, however, petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice. Thus, we find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel that petitioner was not willing to serve in the college and he was offering lame excuses by indulging in unnecessary correspondence to Authorities. 17. In paragraph nos. 16, 18 and 19 of the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that petitioner remained absent from the college from 09.06.2016 to 28.09.2016 and then again from 30.09.2016 to 06.10.2017. The averments made in these paragraphs of the counter affidavit have not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. 18. Although a number of documents have been enclosed with the writ petition, however, there is no evidence which supports petitioner’s claim for salary for the period for which he is claiming salary. The averments made in these paragraphs of the counter affidavit have not been denied in the rejoinder affidavit. 18. Although a number of documents have been enclosed with the writ petition, however, there is no evidence which supports petitioner’s claim for salary for the period for which he is claiming salary. There is nothing on record to show that he reported for duties in the college during the said period, but was not permitted to join. In the absence of any material on record to support petitioner’s claim, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Additional Director, Garhwal Region, Pauri, whereby he has turned down petitioner’s claim for salary for the period he did not perform duties in the College. 19. In the impugned order dated 06.10.2017, Additional Director has mentioned date of the order passed on petitioner’s representation against relieving order dated 04.04.2016, as 08.06.2016. However, perusal of annexure-9 to the writ petition reveals that Additional Director decided petitioner’s representation vide order dated 09.06.2016 and petitioner was directed to comply with the relieving order passed by Chief Education Officer. However, in the impugned order dated 06.10.2017, date of said order is mentioned as 08.06.2016 and it is held that petitioner will not get salary for 09.06.2016. 20. Since order was passed by Additional Director on 09.06.2016 and till then, petitioner’s relieving was kept in abeyance, therefore, he cannot be blamed for not joining in the college on 09.06.2016. 21. In such view of the matter, we hold that petitioner shall be entitled to salary for 09.06.2016. Impugned order dated 06.10.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. 22. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of.