SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the relief sought for in both the writ applications are more or less identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, both the writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In the accompanied writ applications, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing part of order dated 24.01.2014, whereby punishment of (a).Censor, (b).stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and (c).no work no pay during which the petitioner remained out of service have been imposed and further prayed for direction upon the respondents to pay the full salary to the petitioner during the period of suspension i.e. 24.05.2008 to 20.12.2010 as also from the date of dismissal i.e. 21.12.2010 to the date of reinstatement i.e. 24.01.2014 with interest @ 12 % per annum.

(3.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ applications are that while the petitioners were holding the post of Head Clerk/Clerk in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, some teachers were transferred from one place to another in the month of January, 2008. Pursuant thereto, the respective teachers joined their respective schools but the Director, Primary Education cancelled such transfer order vide order dated 17.07.2008, which was challenged by way of filing W.P. (S) 3731 of 2008 and analogous cases, which were disposed of vide a common order dated 16.10.2008 quashing the order of transfer of teachers. However, the petitioners were put under suspension vide order dated 24.05.2008 for the transfer took place in the month of January, 2008 because of the reason that on account of such transfer, about 100 schools had become without regular teacher, which caused adverse affect on Mid-Day-Meal Scheme. Pursuant thereto, charge was framed against the petitioners vide memo dated 28.03.2009 enclosing Prapatra-Ka. Thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority, who submitted its report vide memo dated 01.04.2010, wherein none of the two charges levelled against the petitioner was found proved. However, differing with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from services under the Provisions of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Jharkhand Service Code vide order dated 21.12.2010. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred appeal, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.01.2014, which is impugned before this Court.