RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 54 dtd. 12/1/2021 (Annexure-12) passed by the Director, Primary Education, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed with a major punishment of dismissal from service without conducting a proper and full-fledged Departmental Proceeding by competent authority. Further, prayer has been made for quashing the Memo of Charge dtd. 5/9/2020 (Annexure-1) and to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages along with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The Petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Science subject on 14/5/1988 in Government Middle School, Jalim, Latehar. Thereafter, he was appointed as Block Education Extension Officer (hereinafter referred as BEEO) on 10/4/1992 through competitive examination held for Sub-ordinate Education Service in the year, 1989 and was posted at Bero, Ranchi. Since his appointment, the petitioner served at different places of posting with utmost sincerity. During the period 2019-20, when the petitioner was posted as BEEO at Patratu-I in Ramgarh District including the additional charge of Patratu-II, a Charge Memo dtd. 5/9/2020 was framed against him without any show cause notice for not submitting the reports within time and misusing his chair to coerce the teachers into getting insurance policies from his wife, who is an Insurance Agent. The said Memo of Charge has been issued jointly by the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh and Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh. While the petitioner was oblivious to the Memo of Charge framed against him, the said Charge of Memo was forwarded by the Respondent- DSE to the Director, Primary Education vide his letter contained in memo No. 1297 dtd. 8/9/2020. for further proceeding. It is specific case of the petitioner that when the Memo of Charge was served upon the petitioner, the supporting documents containing the relied upon documents/evidence were not supplied to him. Thereafter, vide letter contained in memo No. 1199 dtd. 24/9/2020 issued by the Under Secretary, Primary Education by which the petitioner was called upon hearing of the matter. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner appeared before the respondent-Director, Primary Education on 24/9/2020 and was directed to immediately give his written reply to six charges framed against him, which the petitioner submitted carefully, elucidating that all the required reports for his districts had been duly submitted and he had never misused his position to coerce the teachers into getting insurance policies. Thereafter, the Director, Primary Education vide his office order dtd. 2/11/2020 recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and directed that second show cause may be issued to him and he be suspended with immediate effect although nothing cogent had been brought on record to substantiate the charges of imputation relating to dereliction of duties and coerce of teachers. Upon the direction of the Director, Primary Education, the petitioner was suspended vide Office order contained in Memo No. 1335 dtd. 10/11/2020 issued by the Deputy Director, Primary Education. The second show cause was issued to the petitioner vide letter contained in Memo No. 1370 dtd. 23/11/2020 by the Under Secretary, Primary Education and petitioner was directed to submit his reply, within 15 days. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner replied vide his letter dtd. 4/12/2020 requesting the authorities to clarify certain aspects w.r.t. disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and also prayed for time to submit his reply and take effective defense. In the meanwhile, the respondents have exonerated 31 Assistant Teachers, who were alleged to have been taken undue advantage of the position of the petitioner in order to get their insurance policies and their salaries were released vide office order contained in Memo No. 1750 dtd. 18/12/2020.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that although the documents demanded by the petitioner were not provided but from his memory and limited resource, he gave his reply on 21/12/2020 to the allegations levelled against him. Thereafter, The respondent-Director, Primary Education vide office order dtd. 12/1/2021passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service as against the Petitioner, without considering the nature of allegations and the replies/defence submitted by the petitioner.Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.