Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.�The petitioner before this Court is an Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in a grant-in-aid school, though which is also a minority institution known as "Gyan Prakash Inter College, Dhamola, District Nainital". Petitioner is a teacher in the subject of Sanskrit. The institution is a grant-in-aid school, till Class Xth though recognised upto Class XIIth. The petitioner admittedly teaches Class 9th and 10th and he draws his salary from the funds, given to the school by the State Exchequer. On 16.02.2011, the daughter of the petitioner who is also studying in the same college forgot to take her lunch box to the school, and the petitioner consequently went to her class to deliver the lunch box to her. At that time she was giving her practical examination of intermediate. There were some objections to the Management in this regard, and thereafter, he was given show cause notice on the alleged misconduct. Though the Principal of the said college vide order dated 30.04.2011, after hearing the petitioner, gave him warning and the matter came to an end, yet, the order of the Principal has no relevance, as the Principal is not the appointing authority as the Management Committee is the appointing authority.

The Management Committee later passed an order dated 02.09.2011 in which there is a reference of meeting dated 25.07.2011 of the Management Committee of the school whereby it was resolved to give punishment to the petitioner. Thereafter, the punishment was awarded to the petitioner. The punishment was stoppage of increment for one year, and the candidature of the petitioner for promotion was not to be considered for one year. It also barred the petitioner for evaluating the answer scripts of Board Examination and an adverse entry was also to be made in his service book.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on which the Committee of Management, directed that the "adverse entry" will not be recorded in the service record of the petitioner, but the other punishments remained as it is. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Education Officer, who passed an order dated 30.04.2012, by which Committee of Management and Principal of the said school was directed to enquire into the matter, as the charges shown on record as far as indiscipline acts of the petitioner were minor in nature. Ultimately, the Committee of Management on the very same day i.e. 30.04.2012 suspended the petitioner. The Chief Education Officer constituted three members committee and passed the order dated 31.01.2013 by which ultimately the District Education Officer passed the punishment of stopping one increment of the petitioner. Against the said order the petitioner as well as Management Committee filed an appeal before the respondent No. 5/Additional Director of Education. The Additional Director of Education vide order dated 18.02.2014 dismissed the appeal of the Management Committee stating that the authority satisfied with the order. However, no order was passed in the appeal of the petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. T.A. Khan has rightly argued before this Court that there is no useful purpose of his appeal before the Additional Director, as he has already spoken his mind on the appeal of the Management Committee.

In view of the above and the Court is also being satisfied that the matter be disposed finally.

The State is represented by Mr. T.P.S. Takuli. In spite of repeated opportunities to Mr. Pradeep Hariya, who represent the Management Committee, no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. The last opportunity was given to him on 07.07.2014 by this Court. In spite of the stop order, he has not filed any counter affidavit till date.

Today, the case was initially taken up in the first call whereby Mr. T.A. Khan was directed to ask Mr. Pradeep Hariya, Advocate, for the Management Committee to be present before this Court. The matter was taken up again after post lunch session. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate submits that in spite of his efforts, he could not locate Mr. Pradeep Hariya in the Court campus. Since the opportunity of Mr. Pradeep Hariya has already been closed and there is no counter affidavit on record, the Court has no option except to hear the matter ex parte.

From the perusal of records as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the State it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has been harassed by the Management Committee on trivial issues. Petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court several letters of the Management Committee where explanation is being called from the petitioner on trivial matters, such "as to why he had permitted more than one student to leave the class in order to drink water?", etc. On record there is no allegation of misconduct against the petitioner. He has already been subjected to an undue harassment on the hands of the Management Committee which is reflected from the repeated show cause notices which have been given on trivial issues which could have been avoided. Evidently, the Management Committee has a bias against the petitioner. Moreover, ultimately the charge against the petitioner was that he had gone (in the same school) to give lunch box to his daughter. This is not such a grave offence, even though his daughter was giving her practical exam, as are no allegations against the petitioner that he aided and abetted her daughter in "cheating" or helped her in any manner, in the exam. It is not such an offence which would have entailed the kind of harassment which the petitioner has already faced at the hands of the Management Committee. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 18-02-2014 as well as 31.01.2013 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 5 respectively are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.