LAMBODAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3 namely, District Superintendent of Education, Dumka explaining therein that though the Inquiry Officer namely, the Area Education Extension Officer who had conducted the inquiry against the petitioner, had recorded his finding that the charge against the petitioner, was not proved and that, some disgruntled person had filed a false complaint against the petitioner and on the basis of such finding, he (Respondent No. 3) had recommended to the Deputy Commissioner of the district to pass an order of transfer of the petitioner from the station. Yet on the instruction of the Deputy Commissioner, he had to issue the impugned order of punishment against the petitioner.

(2.) From perusal of the Annexure-A which is the purported letter of recommendation made by the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Dumka, it appears that in spite of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka had recommended to the Deputy Commissioner for inflicting a minor punishment upon the petitioner. It is explained that the person who had forwarded the recommendation and was holding the post of District Superintendent of Education, Dumka at the relevant time, has now retired from service and the present incumbent who has appeared in court today, is not able to explain as to under what circumstances, has such a recommendation been made by his predecessor in office.

(3.) Even in the light of the above explanation, it is not understood as to why and under what circumstances and on what basis, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka had instructed the then District Superintendent of Education, Dumka for issuing an order of punishment against the petitioner by way of stoppage of two increments and stoppage of salary for the period of suspension except the subsisting allowance, that too, without assigning any reason nor informing the petitioner as to the reasons for differing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.