CHUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the legality and validity of the orders (Annex. 7) dated 13.8.2009, order (Annex. 5) dated 7.3.2007 and order (Annex. 3) dated 9.12.2005 and for quashing the charge -sheet (Annex. 1) dated 28.4.2004.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as a Headmaster in the Govt. Secondary School, Sakrana, Jalore. He was served with a charge -sheet (Annex. 1) dated 28.4.2004 issued by the Director, Secondary Education Rajasthan being the petitioner's disciplinary authority. It was alleged in the charge -sheet that while working on the post of Headmaster in the school, the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with due diligence and was negligent due to which the result of Class X of the petitioner's school fell below the prescribed norms. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge -sheet stating therein that the result of Class X fell below the norms because the only teacher of the English subject being one Shri Rashid Khan fell ill in the beginning of the academic session 2000 -01 and attended the school only for 5 days during the entire session. Shri Rashid Khan passed away on 20.8.2000. The petitioner sent numerous request letters to the higher authorities for posting an English teacher in place of Shri Rashid Khan but his requests were not heeded to. Thus, there was no teacher for imparting education in English subject to the students of Class X and the scores of the said class fell below expectations due to the low scoring of the students in the English subject alone. The disciplinary authority considered the reply of the petitioner and passed the order (Annex. 3) dated 9.12.2005 holding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was unacceptable because as per the authority, the petitioner should have used his offices and powers to make alternative arrangements for English teacher and thereby the result could have been improved. The petitioner failed to exercise his powers to make alternate arrangement and therefore, he was guilty of negligence in performance of duties due to which the school's results fell below norms to mere 18.75%. The disciplinary authority accordingly held the petitioner guilty of the charge and imposed upon him a punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order (Annex. 3) specifically pleading therein that he had sent numerous communications to the District Education Officer for posting an English teacher in the school but the District Education Officer failed to accede the requests made by the petitioner and thus, the disciplinary authority's order holding the petitioner responsible of negligence in performance of duty was unjust and arbitrary. The appellate authority decided the appeal by order (Annex. 5) dated 7.3.2007 observing that the result of the Class X fell below the parameters only because of poor scoring by the students in the English subject. For the remaining subjects, the result was 68.75%. The petitioner made numerous efforts to seek a replacement for the deceased English teacher and sent number of communications to the superior officers. The appellate authority further observed that in view of the documents submitted by the petitioner, it was evident that he made wholesome efforts to procure the services of an English teacher against the vacant post. Despite the above finding, the appellate authority held that result of the school fell below the prescribed parameters. Finding the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment imposed upon the petitioner to be disproportionate and excessive, the same was modified and instead the petitioner was punished with censure. The petitioner preferred a revision against the rejection of his appeal which came to be dismissed by the order (Annex. 7) dated 13.8.2009. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) SHRI B.L. Bhati, learned GC appearing for the respondents though feebly tried to support the orders under challenge but he too concedes that the responsibility of the result falling below the required parameters could not have been fixed on the petitioner alone looking to the facts and circumstances as available on record.