SMT. GURIA SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the office order issued vide Memo No. 1763 dated 02.06.2005(Annexure-5) passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi pertaining to withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of letter no. 403 dated 04.10.2006(Annexure-8) and letter no. 467 dated 22.11.2006 passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) Sans details, the facts as delineated in the writ petition, in nutshell is that the petitioner being an Assistant Teacher while posted at Rajkiya Middle School, Krishna Nagar, Ratu Road, Ranchi, during inspection on 15.04.2005, was found absent. Thereafter, vide Memo no.991 dated 16.04.2005, memo of charge (Form 'Ka') has been served to the petitioner, enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation to the aforesaid charge. On perusal of the show cause reply, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2005 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority on the ground of technicality has rejected the appeal vide Annexures-8 & 10 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court for challenging the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect being a major punishment, the second show cause ought to have been issued before infliction of punishment, but the same having not been done, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition is not legally sustainable. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab' reported in 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. Apart from non-issuance of second show cause, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to supplementary affidavit has referred to Annexure-11, the Circular dated 4.4.1992, which envisages that the female employees are entitled to get two days special casual leave in a month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent-authorities have not resorted to full-fledged departmental proceeding amounting to breach of principle of natural justice that too non-supply of enquiry report, causing gross prejudice to the petitioner because the supply of enquiry report is a sine qua non for a just and fair departmental proceeding.