SANJAY PANDITA Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Order No.60-Edu of 2010 dated 27.01.2010, whereby the petitioner, teacher in the Migrant Cell, Jammu was placed under suspension, is under challenge in this petition. As is apparent from the perusal of the order impugned, the petitioner was posted as teacher in the Migrant Cell, Jammu, but, instead of reporting for duty in the Migrant Cell, it is alleged that he started working in some private institution in Pune and was there for the last six years. Further allegation discernible from the order impugned is that the petitioner was absent from duty, but his salary was being drawn from the Migrant Cell in connivance with some officials in the Migrant Cell. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the matter which was to be conducted by the Director School Education, Jammu.

(2.) The order impugned has been challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the order of his suspension was passed more than eight years back, but the respondents have not initiated any enquiry into the matter. Prolonged suspension, it is urged, amounts to punishment and the same cannot be awarded in breach of principles of natural justice. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition in which they have justified the suspension of the petitioner on account of his absence from duty. It is stated that the petitioner after his appointment as teacher on 205.1998 was posted in Camp Higher Secondary School Nagrota Jammu, but was subsequently allowed to draw migrant leave salary from the office of Chief Accounts Officer, Migrant Cell Education Jammu. It is claimed that the petitioner continued to withdraw his leave salary till he was placed under suspension. It is further submitted in the reply filed by the respondents that the petitioner did not report for duty even after the order of suspension was passed despite having been served with a notice at his home address. The respondents have also claimed that the petitioner had been working in some private institution in Pune for the last six years and was simultaneously withdrawing his salary from the Migrant Cell. However, there is no whisper in the reply as to whether the enquiry as envisaged in the order impugned was conducted and with what result.

(3.) This Court, on 19.05.2010, had directed respondent No.2 to disclose the material on the basis of which it has been alleged that the petitioner has been working in some private institution in Pune. There is no response given by the respondents in compliance to the aforesaid order of this Court. Even on 25.05.2018, this Court granted a week's time to the respondents to get instructions with regard to the status of the enquiry, if any, initiated or pending against the petitioner. No response in this regard has been submitted. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that despite his communication he has not been provided with any material with regard to the status of enquiry, if any, initiated or pending against the petitioner.