AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ
Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. M. Solapurkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
Challenge in this appeal is to the part of the order dated 21.12.2021 passed in WPS No. 7001 of 2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge rejected
the prayer for stay of one of the impugned orders dated 26.11.2021 passed by the District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, relieving the petitioner
from the post of Cluster Academic Co-ordinator.
Mr. Tiwari submits that the learned Single Judge committed error of law in not staying the order dated 26.11.2021 relieving the petitioner from the
post of Cluster Academic Co-ordinator, while at the same time, staying the order dated 26.11.2021 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment.
It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Cluster Academic Co-ordinator by the District Collector and therefore, the District Education
Officer has no authority to pass the order relieving the petitioner from the post of Cluster Academic Co-ordinator. It is further submitted that based on
an anonymous complaint and on an enquiry conducted without participation of the petitioner, the impugned orders dated 26.11.2021 had been passed.
Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order dated 26.11.2021 is liable to be stayed.
Mr. Solapurkar, learned Government Advocate, submits that no case is made out for interference with the order under challenge in this appeal.
A perusal of the order dated 26.11.2021 relieving the petitioner from the post of Cluster Academic Co-ordinator would go to show that the order
was passed on being approved by the Collector. The petitioner is a Teacher in Mathematics and the allegation was that he was not taking three
classes in the school as required while being a Cluster Academic Co-ordinator.
On a query of the Court, it is pointed by Mr. Tiwari that the petitioner was nominated to be a Cluster Academic Co-ordinator and that his
substantive post is that of a Teacher (LDT).
Having regard to the issue involved, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with regard to refusal by the learned Single
Judge to stay the order dated 26.11.2021 relieving the petitioner of the post of Cluster Academic Co-ordinator. So far as grant of stay in respect of
imposition of penalty is concerned, the same rests on a different footing as, prima facie, it appears that penalty was imposed without holding
disciplinary proceeding. Both the orders dated 26.11.2021 cannot be equated.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case, as the writ petition is admitted for hearing.
We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.