SUKHVIR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, who are 5 in number are stated to be employed as class-IV employee in Maheshwar Inter College, Aligarh, which is a recognised and aided intermediate college. The petitioners are stated to have participated in an illegal strike called by the Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh on 22.08.1988. For the said reason, the petitioners did not attend the college on the said date. For this act the petitioners were served with a charge-sheet on 31.08.1988, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The charge-sheet contains two charges, first that the petitioners were absent without prior information on 22.08.1988 which amounts to indiscipline and dereliction of duty and second that the petitioners despite being absent, wrongly made their signatures on attendance register. The petitioners submitted their reply pointing out that they had proceeded on strike for non-payment of salary since July 1988 and because of some confusion they had signed the attendance register on the date of strike. The principal of the institution did not accept the explanation submitted by the petitioners and proceeded to pass an order of dismissal from services on 21.09.1988. Not being satisfied, petitioners filed an appeal before the Committee of the Management of the institution on 04.11.1988 which? was dismissed. Against the appellate order, petitioners approached the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh as per the regulations applicable. The District Inspector of Schools has also rejected their petition vide order dated 30.05.1989. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) This writ petition has been pending before this Court since 1989.? The petitioners had been granted an interim order on 09.06.1989 and they are continuously working since then. As on date, the petitioners have completed 26 years of service in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. According to the petitioners there has been no complaint with regards to their work and performance. It is the case of the petitioners that the punishment imposed is not justified as the charges were not proved. In the alternative if their case that? on the alleged charges, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioners is too harsh. According to the petitioners the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges found proved. Absence on one day or wrong signing of the attendance register did merit dismissal from service.

(3.) In the facts of this case, the Court finds that there is substance in the contention of the petitioners. The punishment of dismissal from service only for absence on one particular day and wrong signing of the attendance register by class-IV employees appear to be shockingly disproportionate to the charge in the facts of the case.