Brajnandan Sandilya … v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 3. The District Superintendent
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 363 of 2019 --- Brajnandan Sandilya … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dhanbad 5. The Principal, Upgraded Middle School, Bhistipara, District- Dhanbad 6. Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi through its Respondents Director …. … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4: Mr. K.K. Singh, S.C.-V : Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 6
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C. to S.C.-V : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate Order No. 15 Dated: 04.10.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in letter issued vide memo 44 dated 09.01.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (the respondent no. 3) whereby the Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Education Committee, Dhanbad (the respondent no.4) has been directed to cancel the approval of petitioner’s selection on the post of para teacher (contractual) in Middle School, Bhistipara by placing the same before the Block Education Committee. Further prayer has been made for quashing the decision dated 13.01.2016 taken in the meeting of Village Education Committee, Bhistipara (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the contractual service of the petitioner as para teacher has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meeting of Village Education Committee held on 16.02.2006, the petitioner was selected as para science teacher at Upgraded Middle School, Bishtipara, Dhanbad (hereinafter to be referred as “the said school”) where he joined the service on 25.02.2006. Subsequently, the respondent no. 3, vide letter dated 15.12.2015, stopped the 2 honorarium of the petitioner with immediate effect by issuing show cause notice to him seeking his explanation within three days as to why his contract with respect to appointment on the post of para teacher be not cancelled. It was also alleged in the said show cause notice that at the time of inspection made on 23.11.2015 at 10.50 a.m. in the said school by the Sub-Inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad, the petitioner was found absent without any information. It was further alleged that the petitioner interpolated in the remarks made by the inspecting officer in the attendance register as well as threatened her by visiting her residence. The petitioner submitted his reply before the District Education Officer, Dhanbad stating that at the time of inspection, he had gone to a medical shop with permission of the Headmaster of the said school as he was suffering from abdominal pain. However, the respondent no. 3, vide impugned letter dated 09.01.2016, directed the respondent no. 4 to cancel the approval of petitioner’s selection/contract on the post of para teacher in Middle School, Bhistipara by placing the same before the Block Education Committee. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (the respondent no. 2) on 05.03.2016 requesting inter alia to reinstate him in service, however no action was taken by the said respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 has been passed without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without conducting any inquiry and therefore the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the petitioner had sent a notice dated 30.12.2017 to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 through his lawyer for his reinstatement by recalling the order of termination of contractual service on the post of para teacher, which was passed in unlawful manner without conducting any inquiry, however nothing was done. In fact, the said Sub-Inspector of School always used to engage the petitioner in her personal work such as purchasing vegetables as well as groceries from market and when 3 he raised objection, she made false allegation against him. 4. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned S.C.-V appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that the Sub-Inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad visited the said school on 23.11.2015 at 10.50 a.m. and in course of inspection, it was found that the petitioner had though marked his attendance in the attendance register, he was absent from the school without any information. Hence, the Sub-Inspector of School mentioned the factual position in the “Teachers’ Attendance Register” with her initials. 5. It is further submitted that office of Sub-Inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad is also situated in the campus of the said school. She again visited the school on 24.11.2015 during which after perusal of the “Teachers’ Attendance Register”, she found that her remarks and initials entered in the same on earlier date were struck off by the petitioner and he had also put his signature thereon by putting his departure time as 2.00 p.m. 6. It is further contended that the petitioner had also threatened the Sub-Inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad by visiting her residence which was reported by her to the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 34 dated 24.11.2015. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter no. 4828 dated 15.12.2015 seeking explanation from him within three days and also stopped his honorarium with immediate effect. 7. Learned S.C.-V also submits that on earlier occasion, the petitioner had filed a complaint against one Ramesh Kumar Singh, Revenue Clerk of Circle Office, Govindpur upon which a joint enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad and the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad. In course of inquiry, it was found that the petitioner was engaged as agent/broker in mutation work in the concerned circle office. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3, vide memo no. 188/SSA dated 20.03.2013, issued show cause notice to the petitioner and subsequently vide letter no. 785/SSA dated 31.07.2014, directed the respondent no. 4 to terminate the contract of the petitioner as para teacher on the 4 ground that he was not working in the school, rather was engaged as broker in the circle office, Govindpur by getting honorarium from the ‘Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’. However, the Village Education Committee, Bhishtipara, Dhanbad did not follow the direction of the respondent no. 3 whereafter the said respondent, vide impugned letter no. 44 dated 09.01.2016, again directed the respondent no. 4 to terminate the contract of the petitioner as para teacher of the said school. Thereafter, the matter was placed in the meeting of Village Education Committee, Bhishtipara, Dhanbad held on 13.01.2016 wherein it was decided to terminate the contractual service of the petitioner as para teacher of the said school. 8. Learned S.C.-V further contends that the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 been passed directing the respondent no. 4 to cancel the approval of petitioner’s selection on the post of para teacher in the said school after issuing show cause notice to him and as such it has wrongly been contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to him. In fact, the petitioner was not interested in the teaching work, rather he was engaged in the circle office, Govindpur as an agent/broker. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 as well as the decision dated 13.01.2016 taken by the Village Education Committee, Bhistipara whereby his contractual service as para teacher has been terminated. 11. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as neither inquiry was conducted nor opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the same. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State respondents has contended that the impugned order dated 09.01.2016 has been passed as well as decision dated 13.01.2016 has been taken in the meeting of Village Education Committee, Bhistipara after due 5 compliance of the principles of natural justice as a show cause notice was already issued to the petitioner vide letter no. 4828 dated 15.12.2015 before passing of the impugned order/decision. 13. To appreciate the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the letter no. 4828 dated 15.12.2015 which suggests that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation from him on the allegations levelled against him within three days as well as his honorarium was ordered to be stopped with immediate effect. The service of the said show cause notice has not been denied by the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 14. Moreover, it is not the claim of the petitioner that during inspection made by the Sub-Inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad, he was present in the school and the allegation levelled against him was false. Rather, he has taken different excuses at different stages. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that at the time of inspection, he had gone to a medical shop with the permission of the Headmaster as he was suffering from abdominal pain whereas in his letter dated 05.03.2016 written to the respondent no.2, he mentioned that at the time of inspection, he had gone to take tea. Curiously enough, in the legal notice dated 30.12.2017, the petitioner stated that the Sub-inspector of School, Municipality, Dhanbad used to take personal work from him and on the date of inspection when he refused to do her personal work, she came to the school and made false allegation against him on the pretext of inspection. 15. It thus appears that the petitioner has no concrete explanation with respect to the allegation levelled against him which indicates that he was unauthorizedly absent from his duty on the date of inspection. That apart, it also appears that in another matter, an inquiry was conducted by Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad wherein it was found that the petitioner was engaged as a broker/agent in mutation work 6 in the circle office, Govindpur and he had no interest in teaching work as a para teacher in the said school. Under the said circumstance, the respondent no. 3 made recommendation for termination of the petitioner’s contractual service as para teacher. 16. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner who was appointed as a para teacher on contract basis, was not performing his work sincerely, rather was engaged in some other work. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order as contained in the letter issued vide memo no. 44 dated 09.01.2016 by the respondent no. 3 as well as the decision dated 13.01.2016 taken by the Village Education Committee, Bhistipara whereby the petitioner’s contractual service as para teacher has been terminated.
Decision
17. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Ritesh/AFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.)