BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition, the petitioner, Master in Government High School, Sarore, is seeking quashing of Order No. CEOJ/2690 -94 dated 23.04.2010 issued by the Chief Education Officer, Jammu, respondent No. 4 herein, whereby he has been placed under suspension. He is also seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate him and release all the monetary as well as other consequential service benefits in his favour. The brief resume of the case is that when the petitioner was posted as a Master in Govt. High School, Sarore, he was placed under suspension vide Order No. CEOJ/2690 -94 dated 23.04.2010, impugned herein, on the ground that he was allegedly involved in leakage of question papers of 10+2 and Matriculation of the year 2010. Consequently, the then Principal, SRML Higher Secondary School, Jammu (Sh. Joginder Singh) was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry and furnish the report/recommendations to respondent No. 4 before 26.04.2010 positively. It is contended that the said Inquiry Officer neither associated the petitioner nor was any show cause notice ever served upon him despite the lapse of more than two years, nor was the suspension order reviewed after the period of three months. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is not only in utter violation of Rule 31 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, but the same is also bad in law. It is Contended that his reputation has been polluted by implicating him in a false and frivolous case for no fault of him as he was not involved in the alleged paper leakage scam. It is also contended that he was posted as a Superintendent to conduct regular paper at Centre No. 136, Shiksha Niketan, Jeewan Nagar, Jammu, whereas the alleged scam occurred in another Centre.

(2.) UPON notice, respondents filed the objections justifying the suspension of petitioner on the ground that he was found involved in the leakage of 10th class examination and he remained behind the bars from 20.04.2010 to 19.05.2010. It is contended by them that they have yet not charge sheeted the petitioner. It has also been contended by them that the Inquiry Officer has clearly found the involvement of petitioner in the leakage scam.

(3.) THE specific stand of learned Senior counsel for petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer neither issued any show cause notice to him nor was his suspension ever reviewed by the respondents in terms of Government Instructions to Rule 31 of CCA Rules, when the fact of the matter is that the petitioner was placed under suspension in April 2010.