Nirmala Murmu v. 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3231 of 2012 Nirmala Murmu ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. Director,(Secondary Education), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. District Education Officer, Pakur 4. Principal, Nationalized Girls High School, Pakur. …. …. ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiva Sharma, Senior Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, J.C. to G.P.-II 08/13.12.2013 The petitioner has challenged the charge-memo dated 18.02.2010, enquiry report dated 21.06.2011 and second show-cause notice dated 03.05.2012. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to advertisement dated 27.3.1988 published in daily newspaper namely 'Aryawarth', the petitioner participated in the selection process and he was appointed on the post of matric trained teacher in Nationalized Girls Middle School, Pakur by Memo dated 25.02.1989. A charge-sheet dated 18.02.2010 has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 21.06.2011 was submitted. The petitioner has been issued a second show-cause notice on 03.05.2012 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Rajiva Sharma, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that though, the 2 petitioner was appointed on the post of matric trained teacher in a Nationalized school pursuant to an advertisement and after following the procedure prescribed under the rules for appointment of the teacher, a charge-memo has been issued 23 years after the appointment of the petitioner and therefore, the charge-memo dated 18.02.2010 and the subsequent proceedings are illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that no specific charge has been framed against the petitioner and the charge is vague. He has further submitted that in the last 23 years no complaint whatsoever was registered against the competence and suitability of the petitioner as a teacher and therefore, the charge-memo dated 18.02.2010 should not have been issued against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the charge-memo dated 18.02.2010 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and merely because the petitioner continued to work for 23 years, it would not be a bar to the issuance of the charge-memo against him. He has further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the principle of natural justice has not been followed in his case and therefore, no interference is required in the present case. 3 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana”, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, has held as under: 13. “It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Dutt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to to so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well-settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.” 7. From the aforesaid decision it is clear that the charge-memo can be challenged only on the ground if the authority issuing the charge-memo has no jurisdiction or it is patently illegal. I do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that after 23 years of the appointment, the equitable consideration would not permit the respondent-authority to issue 4 charge-memo against the petitioner. In the writ petition itself the petitioner has stated that on the basis of a report of C.B.I. dated 12.04.2005, the charge-memo has been issued. In the charge-memo specific allegation has been levelled that neither any test was carried out nor any interview was taken and therefore, I find that the contention that the charge-memo is vague, is not substantiated by the materials on record. Moreover, when an enquiry report has been submitted which would be based on facts disclosed during the departmental enquiry, I do not find any merit in the contention that this Court can interfere with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. A second show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner in consonance with the constitutional right granted to an employee therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner to the issuance of second show-cause notice is without any substance. A departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in which the petitioner would have opportunity to put his defence and therefore, at this stage, I find no merit in the writ petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the observations made in the order would not prejudice the respondent-authority while passing a final order in the departmental proceeding. Satyarthi/A.F.R. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)