SWADESH SINGH Vs. BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner alleges that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, and the Up Basic Shiksha Adhikari by an Order, dated 31.3.1983, placed the petitioner under suspension for being continuously absent for one month. By the said Order the petitioner was attached and was directed to give his attendance at Central Junior High School, Aligarh during the suspension period.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14085 of 2001, alleging that inspite of the lapse of 18 years he was still under suspension and that no charge-sheet or enquiry had been issued against him till date. The petitioner further alleged that he had also not been paid the subsistence allowance. The petitioner alleged that he made several efforts and approached the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance and to get the suspension Order revoked, but the authorities paid no heed to his submissions. The petitioner further alleged that by an Order dated 30.8.1999, the District Basic Education Officer directed the petitioner to attach himself with the Primary Pathshala Sattar Nagar, Block Majhgawan, district Bareilly. Based on the aforesaid Order, another Order dated 3.8.2000 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer directing the Accounts Officer to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner on the basis of which it is alleged that a sum of Rs. 405/- for the month of August and September, 2000 was paid to the petitioner and thereafter, the payment was stopped without assigning any reason. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court praying that the suspension Order be quashed and the petitioner should be paid the arrears of salary, etc.

(3.) On the aforesaid allegation this Court passed an ex-parte interim Order directing that if the petitioner had not been served with any charge sheet, in that event, the suspension Order would remain stayed. Armed with the interim Order, the petitioner served a copy of the stay' Order upon the respondents on the basis of which an Order dated 17.4.2001 was passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner had remained continuously absent for more than five years, his services was deemed to have been terminated under Volume II, Chapter III, Rule 18 of the Financial Hand Book. The petitioner then filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18172 of 2001 praying for the quashing of the Order dated 17.4.2001 and for payment of salary, etc.