REKHA BAXLA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher and on a particular day i.e. on 15th April, 2005, the petitioner was late by ten minutes and, therefore, she was put under suspension and ultimately, the order of punishment has been passed at Annexure 5 dated 2nd June, 2005, whereby, two annual increments of the petitioner have been stopped with future effect. The said order dated 2nd June, 2005, passed by the disciplinary authority, was challenged by way of departmental appeal and the departmental appeal, preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed by an order, passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, dated 22nd November, 2006, which is at Annexure 8 to the memo of petition. Thus, both the orders, namely, the order, passed by the disciplinary authority, as well as the order, passed by the appellate authority, are under challenge, which are at Annexure 5 as well as Annexure 8 to the memo of petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is unnecessarily excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the charges. The petitioner has joined her services as Assistant Teacher on 31st December, 2003 and thereafter, she is working honestly, sincerely, diligently and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the late by ten minutes on a particular day was, in fact, because of the sickness and, therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the charges.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not true that the petitioner was late by ten minutes rather the fact is that when the high ranking officer of the State visited the school, in question, the petitioner was found absent on the particular day i.e. on 15th April, 2005 and, therefore, she was put under suspension on 16th April, 2005 and ultimately, the order of punishment was passed to the effect that her two annual increments have been stopped with future effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed. Thus, against the concurrent finding of facts, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Having heard Learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi dated 2nd June, 2005 (Annexure 5) as well as the order, passed by the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi dated 22nd November, 2006 (Annexure 8), mainly for the following facts and reasons: