MD. SIKANDAR ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Government Advocate for the State.

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the office order as contained in Memo No. 1248 dated 31.08.2006 by which the petitioner has been restrained to work as Drawing and Disbursement Authority by the order of the respondent No. 4. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to restrain them from taking any action against the petitioner for the promotion being granted to the petitioner on the post of Headmaster in view of the order passed in CWJC No. 5219 of 200 The petitioner further prays for a direction to allow him to continue on the post of the Headmaster and also to take action against the respondent No. 5. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the office order as contained in Memo No. 1108 dated 14.08.2006 by which the allegations against the petitioner has been proved by the District Superintendent of Education, Sahebganj, although an inquiry is said to be pending before the Area Education Officer.

(3.) It has been stated by Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for the District Superintendent of Education to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner, when the inquiry was already entrusted to the Area Education Officer, Barhait. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was granted promotion earlier to the post of Headmaster which however was subsequently cancelled and which led to the petitioner preferring a writ application and pursuant to the order passed in the same, the petitioner and several other persons were promoted as headmasters. Learned counsel submits that at the behest of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner has been disturbed time and again and although the juniors to the petitioners who were promoted as headmasters were not disturbed, but on frivolous applications filed at the behest of respondent No. 5, the petitioner has been prevented as an interim measure to work as a Drawing and Disbursing Officer. It has further been stated that the 1993 Rules of the State Government does not cover the case of the petitioner, although in the garb of the 1993 Rules, the inquiry was made by the District Superintendent of Education and prima facie, it was detected that the promotion of the petitioner was found to be illegal. Learned counsel submits that the inquiry report which has been submitted by the District Superintendent of Education was after the passing of the impugned order. It has been stated that neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor proper consideration on the show-cause submitted by the petitioner was made and in such circumstances, the impugned orders be quashed and direction be passed upon the respondents to take action against respondent No. 5.