The High Court · 2023

Legal Reasoning

11/ 07.12.2023 Heard the parties. ----------- : :

Legal Reasoning

Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate ----------

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated

07.02.2020, issued by District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Samgra Shiksha Abhiyan, Garhwa whereby the petitioner’s contract of appointment has been terminated. She has also prayed for quashing the order dated 23.11.2020 passed by State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi whereby her application reconsideration of her case has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed that after quashing of the said orders, the respondents be directed to reinstate her with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 2

Decision

The case of the petitioner as delineated in the writ petition is that on

03.01.2008, she joined as Math Teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Girls Residential School, Meral and thereafter, on 24.11.2016 she was posted as Warden-cum-Math Teacher in the said School. While she was discharging her duties on 20.12.2019, an FIR vide Garhwa P.S. Case No. 91 of 2019 was instituted under Section 376, 370(vi)/ 120B of the IPC and Section 4/6 of the POCSO Act on the basis of fardbeyan of Reeta Kumari against Chandan Kumar, Snehlata Singh – Warden, Dr. Govind Seth, Nurse Nirmala Devi and Lal Bahadur Singh, School’s President. Thereafter on

21.12.2019, the statement of Reeta Kumari was recorded u/s. 164 of Cr. P.C. by Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa and on 16.02.2020 the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet No. 13/2020 against Chandan Mehta and Nirmala Kumari. It is the further case of petitioner that vide letter dated

21.12.2019, she was discharged from the post of warden and prohibited from entry in the School and further directed for handing over the charge of warden to Smt. Shital Sweta Sacha and she was transferred to Katurba Gandhi Girls’ School, Kandi from the date of said letter. 4. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to file explanation within 24 hrs. upon the charge of not informing Department about School’s situation, interpolation of records and non-discharge of duties. In response to which petitioner submitted his explanation. It is the case of the petitioner that initial enquiry report was submitted by the District Superintendent of Education before the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa and though the allegation against all the teachers of Kasturba Gandhi Girls’ Residential School were made but only this petitioner was suspended and prohibited from entry in the school premises and only show-cause was sought from them. Thereafter, on 07.02.2020, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Garhwa a meeting was held and it was decided to terminate the contract of petitioner. Consequently, vide order dated 07.02.2020, respondents have ended the 3 contract of appointment at Kasturba Gandhi Girls’ Residential School. The petitioner filed an application before the State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi and the same was also rejected vide order dated 23.11.2020. Throwing challenge to the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law rather, the same are fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that it is a case of discrimination. Learned counsel drawing the attention of the Court towards various documents brought on record by way of writ petition i.e. Annexures-3, 4 and 5, argues that petitioner joined the post of warden in the year 2019 and the date of occurrence was of October, 2018 and as such, liability cannot be fastened on the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of the enquiry report it appears that though liability was fixed on all the Teachers of the Schools but they were given lesser punishment and by adopting pick and choose method, her contract of appointment was cancelled. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JEPC very humbly submits that it is not that petitioner’s contract has been cancelled on the frivolous ground but admittedly, the petitioner was Class Teacher of School where the said girl who was involved in the case, was studying and the inaction of the petitioner tarnished the image of the School as a whole. Learned counsel submits that being a Class Teacher, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to inform the Higher Authorities about the incident which took place in her School but she failed to do so and as such, rightly her contract has been cancelled rather terminated. Learned counsel submits 4 that from the Enquiry Report itself and Annexure-14 it is crystal clear that petitioner was Class Teacher at that point of time and she failed to perform duties which is unbecoming of a Govt. Servant particularly a female teacher and her action brought the School into disrepute and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and termination of contract is fully justified. 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-State adopts the arguments advanced by Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JEPC. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties across the bar this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly petitioner was the Class Teacher of the said School at relevant time i.e. occurrence of the incidence. (II) It has come in the Enquiry Report that petitioner failed to take any initiatives and did not inform the Higher Authorities about the incident and as a Class Teacher she cannot shirk from her responsibility of informing the Higher Authorities. The said action of the petitioner brought to the Institution like Kasturba Gandhi Girl’s School into disrepute which is a Government Institution and has pride in the State.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress this Court that at that very time when the occurrence took place i.e. in the year 2018, she was not the Warden and as such, it cannot be said that it was her responsibility to inform the Higher Authorities. Learned counsel further argues that from enquiry report it appears that though liability was fixed on all the Teachers of the Schools but they were given lesser punishment and by adopting pick and choose method, her contract of appointment was cancelled. However, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that other Teachers and Warden were given lesser punishment. 5

10. It appears that every opportunity was given to the petitioner to present her case and thereafter, based on the minutes of meeting dated

07.02.2020, held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chairman, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, Garhwa, contract of the petitioner was terminated. 11. As sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-