CHIRANJI LAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as a Clerk in the Arya Higher Secondary School, Narwana is aggrieved by the order of his dismissal from service. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was served with a chargesheet in which it was alleged that he had embezzled different amounts of money. After the inquiry the Management submitted a proposal to the District Education Officer as required under Section 3 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Security of Service) Rules, 1971. The proposal of the Management was not approved on the ground that the procedure as prescribed under the rule has not been followed. The management of the School appealed against the order. Vide order dated May 28, 1985 the Director of School Education Haryana accepted the appeal. The petitioner challenged this order in CWP No. 3446 of 1985. Vide order dated July 30, 1985 the Division Bench of this Court remanded the case to the District Education Officer for a fresh decision. In pursuance to the orders of the High Court, the Deputy District Education Officer, Jind directed the Management to get a fresh inquiry conducted from an impartial person. The order of the Deputy District Education Officer was challenged by the School Management through an appeal. Vide order dated October 16, 1986, appeal was accepted on the ground that the Deputy District Education Officer had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the case had to be decided only by the District Education Officer. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Education Officer. Vide order dated March 20, 1987, the District Education Officer approved the proposal of the Management regarding the dismissal of the petitioner. It was found that the inquiry had been conducted in strict conformity with the prescribed procedure. It was also found that the facts warranted the proposed punishment. This order passed by the District Education Officer was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Director, School Education Haryana. He found that the petitioner had misappropriated various amounts more than once. He had himself admitted this fact vide his statements dated December 22, 1982 and January 16, 1984, He had even tendered an apology before the Management. The Director of School Education agreeing with the findings recorded by the District Education Officer had consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders of the District Education Officer as well as the Director of School Education, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition. The orders as also the charge sheet issued to the petitioner have been challenged on a number of grounds raised in the petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge I Class, Narwana. Vide order dated March 23, 1989, it has been held by the Court that the petitioner owns a plot in New Delhi and is running a business. He is a man of means. On this premises, it has been averred that the contention of the petitioner that he could not pursue his case properly because of lack of funds is wholly untenable. It has been further pointed out that the petitioner had committed embezzlements a number of times, but taking a lenient view, he was pardoned. However, since the petitioner persisted, he was served with a charge sheet and ultimately the orders of dismissal were rightly passed by the appropriate authority.