Bhagwat Paswan … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka 3.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 4.The
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (S) No. 7962 of 2012 --- Bhagwat Paswan … … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka 3.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 4.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda 5.The DRDA, Godda 6.The District Superintendent of Education, Godda 7.The Area Education Officer, Mahagama, Godda 8.The Block Education Extension Officer, Boarijore, Godda --- … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Shekhar, J.C. to G.P. VI --- 0/25.11.2013 Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.06.2011 whereby, penalty of stoppage of one annual increment has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The order dated 13.04.2012 has also been assailed by the petitioner by which the request to reconsider the penalty order dated 27.06.2011 has been declined by the respondents. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a matter of record that inquiry officer recommended that since charge is not proved the petitioner may be issued a warning, however, respondent no. 6 without assigning any reason has inflicted the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment. He has further submitted that before Holi vacation between the period 18.03.2011 to 21.03.2011, the Village Education Committee had decided that the School on 17.03.2011 would be open between -2- 9:15 am to 15:15 pm. It has also been found that the petitioner had no role to play in the building construction and he was never found absent during his entire service tenure. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed as under: 10. “That it is stated and submitted that after receiving the writ copy from Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda issued a letter vide memo no. 1438 dated 04.06.2013 to Area Education Officer, Mahagama to submit detailed report with evidence. The Area Education Officer, Mahagama has submitted the detailed report by vide memo no. 130 dated 08.06.2013 in the office of the concerned respondent at Godda. That is is stated and submitted that the 11. petitioner Sri Bhagwat Paswan was an in-charge Headmaster in Upgraded Middle School, Benidas Bhuska, Block-Meharma, District-Godda. He has retired from service on 31st December, 2011. It is also stated that all retiral benefits except one annual increment have already been paid to the petitioner vide memo no. 957 dated 30.08.2012, vide memo no. 958 dated 30.08.2012 and vide memo no. 959 dated 30.08.2012 of the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi. One annual increment of the petitioner could not be paid to the petitioner due to certain allegation on the basis of enquiry report. 12. That it is stated and submitted that in the Upgraded Middle School, Benidas Bhuska, Block – Meharma an inspection had been done by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda on 17.03.2011; he found that the petitioner – sri Bhagwat Paswan mentioned his signature on the attendance register but the petitioner was absent without information. At the time of inspection, he found that lesson plan has not been prepared and the students of the school were deprived of education by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been interested in many activities in the favour of students as well as school. So on the basis of such allegations, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda issued a letter vide memo no. 625 dated 02.04.2011 and suspended the petitioner – Sri Bhagwat Paswan and fixed his duty in the office of the Area Education Officer, Mahagama and during the period of suspension the cost of living allowances (subsistence) is paid to the petitioner. The residual -3- dues of the petitioner will be paid soon. 13. That it is stated and submitted that the charge sheet has been framed by the then District Superintendent of Education, Godda by his official letter no. 631 dated 02.04.2011. The letter vide memo no. 631 dated 02.04.2011 is annexed as Annexure – 1` to this writ application. The then District Superintendent of Education, Godda has deputed the Area Education Officer, Mahagama-cum- Enquiry officer and Block Education Extension Officer, Boarijore-cum-Departmental Officer to enquire into the matter. It is humbly stated that the Area Education Officer, Mahagama-cum-Enquiry officer after completion of above enquiry came to the conclusion that the working hour of school had been changed and during the inspection time the petitioner was absent without information. It was illegal. The above enquiry report has been submitted by the Area Education Officer, Mahagama-cum-Enquiry officer to the office of the concerned respondent vide memo no. 136 dated 10.06.2011. 14. That it is stated and submitted that the then District Superintendent of Education, Godda sent the related file to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda on 25.06.2011 for the decision of the above matter. It is humbly stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Godda has approved the stoppage of petitioner's one annual increment on the basis of above said allegation. On the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, the then District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide memo no. 1314 dated 27.06.2011 ordered to release the petitioner's suspension with stoppage of one annual increment. The letter vide memo no. 1314 dated 27.06.2011 is annexed as Annexure – 3 to this writ application.” 5. Reiterating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the recommendation of the inquiry officer is not binding on the respondents and on the basis of the materials on record, the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment has been passed against the petitioner. 6. On perusal of the documents on record, I find that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that on 17.03.2011 he allegedly shifted the School hours between 9:15 am to 15:15 pm. -4- The petitioner has taken a plea that the said decision was taken by the Village Education Committee and the inquiry officer has found that since such a decision is to be taken by the District Education Officer and therefore, the charge is found proved against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment is excessive and it could not have been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has since superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.08.2011. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 27.06.2011 & 13.04.2012 are quashed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. R. Shekhar Cp 2 (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)