SUJATA PANIGRAHI Vs. CHAIRMAN, LOCAL BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Asst. Master (Odia) in Sainik School, Bhubaneswar. On 23.07.2010, a written complaint was lodged by Smt. Sabita Patra, Asst. Master alleging therein that on 22.07.2010 at 12.00 hours in the staff room the petitioner used abusive/unparliamentary languages on her and thrown the mark sheet on her in the presence of other staff members, showing disrespect to the sanctity of the profession. Pursuant thereto, a notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2010 under Annexure-1, that the acts of the petitioner were unbecoming on the part of a public servant under the relevant conduct rules of Sainik School Society Rules and Regulations, 1997 (for short "Regulations, 1997"), and therefore, she was called upon to give explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, why suitable disciplinary action should not been initiated against her.

(2.) The petitioner submitted her show cause reply on 04.09.2010 denying the allegations as untrue and requested to exonerate her. The same being found unsatisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and a memorandum dated 26.09.2010 with five charges pertaining to her alleged misbehavior and misconduct with Smt. Sabita Patra, Asst. Master on 207.2010 at 100 hours. In the said memorandum dated 26.09.2010, the petitioner was called upon to submit written statement of defence within ten days and further to state whether she desired to be heard in person.

(3.) Upon receipt of the memorandum dated 26.09.2010, the petitioner submitted representation before opposite party no.2 seeking for supply of certain documents, the details of which were mentioned therein, failing which she will be seriously prejudiced and handicapped in preparing and submitting her written statement of defence. Such representation of the petitioner was rejected by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 05.10.2010 on the pretext that the same was not permissible under the relevant rules before proposed inquiry, and the petitioner was directed to submit her written statement of defence on or before 07.10.2010 positively. On 07.10.2010, the petitioner gave another representation reiterating her request for supply of the documents listed in Annexure-III to the memorandum of charge and to allow her seven days time thereafter to prepare and submit her required written statement of defence. In response to the said representation, the opposite party no. 2 replied vide letter dated 16.11.2010 asking the petitioner to obtain copies of the documents from the Inquiring Officer and submit her written statement of defence by 18.11.2010 positively.