BINOD KUMAR MANDAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the memo no.1554 dated 25.05.2012 vide Annexure-12 to the writ application pertaining to dismissal from services.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed on 01.08.2006 as Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Kundaha, Godda East. While continuing as such at primary school, Sagar Sunderpahari, on the basis of a sham inspection the petitioner was put under suspension vide letter dated 17.11.2011 on the ground of absenteeism, and commissions and omissions on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, the charge sheet dated 29.11.2011 containing 10 charges were levelled against the petitioner as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. After receipt of the suspension order the petitioner submitted his reply repudiating each and every charges levelled against him, requesting the respondent to exonerate him from all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry in a very perfunctory manner without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner nor the petitioner was allowed to adduce any evidence. The enquiry officer submitted its report. The respondent authorities issued second show cause notice and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority on the reply to the second show cause and the enquiry report dismissed the petitioner from services vide letter dated 25.05.2012 Annexure-12 to the writ application. The School Managing Committee which was constituted by the Government to look into the functioning of the school requested the District Superintendent of Education vide letter dated 18.06.2012 refuting the allegations levelled against the petitioner as evident from Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned order, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the so called enquiry report which is the basis for imposition of the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services, is perverse since no witness has been examined by the respondent-enquiry officer nor the villagers have been examined in the proceeding and the enquiry has been completed in a summary manner, and the petitioner on the basis of surmises and conjectures has been held guilty. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry officer has exceeded its jurisdiction in recommending infliction of major punishment, which he was not legally authorised to do. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaints which was alleged to have been made by the villagers and on the basis of which the proceeding has been initiated, has not been provided to the petitioner, which has materially affected in the outcome of the proceeding, therefore, the proceeding has been vitiated and the punishment basing on this perfunctory enquiry could not be legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the imposition of punishment of dismissal from services does not commensurate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Hence, considering the proved misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is grossly disproportionate, excessive to the alleged charges and therefore, the petitioner's case ought to be considered afresh, on the principles of doctrine of proportionality so far as quantum of punishment is concerned. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602 (S.R. Tewari Vs. Union of India and Another) (para 24 to 27).