KIRAN BALA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING order dated 12-04-2003 (Annexure P-9) removing the petitioner from service, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Head Mistress in Sanatan Dharam Middle School Gorakhpur, Jabalpur. Even though she was appointed as Head Mistress on 20-07-1980 but the pay scale and other benefits accruing on such appointment was not paid to her instead she was treated as a Prabhari Adhyapika. Challenging this action of the respondents in not treating her as Head Mistress , she filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.5759/2000. The said writ petition was pending when with a malafide intention and to somehow frustrate the claim of the petitioner, it is stated that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 09-04-2001. In the said charge sheet, 9 imputation of allegations were levelled . Annexure P-1 is the charge sheet and to conduct the inquiry into the said charge sheet, the District Education Officer appointed the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted a report Annexure P-2 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. However, inspite of the fact that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges in the report Annexure P-2, respondent no.2 issued a letter on 25-11-2002 (Annexure P-3) intimating to the petitioner that an inquiry is being conducted into certain charges and the same charge sheet was issued to the petitioner again vide Annexure P-3, accordingly contending that for the same set of allegations a second charge sheet when inquiry has already been concluded and the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition mainly contending that for the charge sheet issued to the petitioner, an inquiry has already been conducted and the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner, further action to appoint Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry vide Annexure P-3 dated 25-11-2002 is illegal. In the meanwhile, it transpires that in a writ petition which was filed by the petitioner being W.P.No,.19/03, inquiry report Annexure P-2 was submitted directly by the Inquiry Officer to the District Education Officer and as the respondent institute had no knowledge about this inquiry W.P.No.19/2003 was disposed of granting liberty to the institute in question to take a final decision on the inquiry report. In view of the above, a show cause notice proposing to differ with the finding of the Inquiry Officer was issued and the impugned action is taken after due approval of the District Education Officer.

(3.) SHRI P.N.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the allegations levelled in the first charge sheet, the report into this inquiry conducted by the First Inquiry Officer vide Annexure P-2 and the action of the respondents in proceeding again with the same inquiry and emphasized that the petitioner is being harassed because she approached this court in the earlier writ petition.