Jharkhand High Court
Janam Jay Pradhan vs Management Of Spg Mission High on 9 June, 2017
Author: H. C. Mishra
Bench: H. C. Mishra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.C.(S.B) No. 30 of 2008
[ Against the Order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed in Case No. 35 of 2008
(JET), by Jharkhand Education Tribunal. ]
Janam Jay Pradhan ..... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Management of SPG Mission High School,
a Minority and Aided School,
West Singbhum at Chaibasa.
2. Secretary, SPG Mission High School,
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum.
3. Headmaster, SPG Mission High School,
Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. ..... ... Respondents
--------
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Afaque Ahmad, Advocate.
--------
By Court :- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed in Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET), by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the application, filed by the appellant against his termination from service from respondent school, has been dismissed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi.
3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The appellant was appointed as a Assistant Teacher on 1.4.1986 in Graduate Trained Pay Scale in S.P.G. Mission High School, Chaibasa, which is a Minority Aided School. At the relevant time, the appellant was In-charge of the Examination Department and during the Matriculation Examination of the year 2006, the fees and forms were realised from the eligible students for appearing in the said examination. However, the Admit Cards of 13 students were not received from the Jharkhand Academic Council, and the students made complains to the Headmaster of the school on 12.2.2006. In order to save the career of the students, the school submitted the applications of those students along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- per student, amounting to Rs.1,34,290/- in the Jharkhand Academic Council, whereupon, the students were allowed to appear in the examination. It was found that it was the appellant, who had realised fees and forms of the students and it was also found that out of the total money, realised from the students, the appellant had not deposited the amount of Rs. 11,838/- in the school fund and had misappropriated the said amount. Thereafter the appellant was suspended and his headquarter was also fixed in the same school, directing him to register his attendance in the school every day, but without giving any information to the -2- concerned authorities, the appellant absented himself from the school unauthorizedly, and it was found that his house was locked. Show cause was issued to the appellant, which he replied on 8.3.2006 stating that due to disturbance in his family he had to go to his home. Show cause notice had also been issued to him on 22.2.2006 giving him the opportunity to give his explanation about the misconducts found against him, which he had replied on 21.3.2006, denying the allegations. The Memo of Charges was issued to the appellant on 30.8.2007, again giving him the opportunity to give reply to the various charges of misconduct found against him, but he did not give any reply to the same. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was made, which also was avoided by the appellant in spite of giving him sufficient opportunity. In the departmental enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of the following charges:-
(a) In the year 2006, the fees and forms of 13 matriculation examinees were not deposited in the Jharkhand Academic Council, though the fees and forms were realised from them.
(b) Out of the amount realised from the examinees by the appellant, he had defalcated the amount of Rs. 11,838/- and had not deposited the same in the School fund.
(c) During the period of suspension, he had unauthorizedly absented himself on 4.3.2006 and 5.3.2006.
(d) On the occasion of the Independence Day of the year 2006, he was unauthorizedly absent from the School.
(e) He failed to give any explanation to the show cause issued to him by the Secondary Education Directorate of the State Government.
(f) And lastly, he had not attended the meeting, which was fixed by the Secretary of the School.
The appellant was given the notice for hearing on the point of punishment on 28.11.2007 at 8.00 AM and he was also given an opportunity to either bring the stay order from the High Court, or to give his representation against the punishment, failing which, the proceeding was to be taken ex-parte against him. The appellant did not appear on the date fixed, nor any representation was filed, and accordingly, punishment order was passed against him by letter No. 1/08 dated 7.1.2007, imposing the fine of Rs. 15,000/- upon him to be paid within five days from receiving the order, failing which, his services were to be treated as terminated. The appellant did not avail even this opportunity, and in spite of the fact that in his Bank Account sufficient amount was available, he did not deposit the fine and accordingly, the services of the appellant stood terminated.
-3-4. The appellant challenged his termination order before the Jharkhand Education Tribunal by filing Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET), which also upon adjudication, was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20th September, 2008. Hence this statutory appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of punishment bearing No. 1/08 dated 7.1.2007, as also the impugned order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the appellant had no knowledge about the proceeding and sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellant in the departmental proceeding to defend himself. It is also submitted that the appellant had no knowledge about the fact that sufficient money was there in his Bank account. It is submitted that if the appellant had the knowledge about the availability of sufficient amount in his Bank account, he would have deposited the fine to save his service. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 18 of Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, the services of the appellant could not be terminated without prior approval of the School Service Board. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order of punishment, as also the impugned order passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there is no illegality, either in the impugned order of punishment bearing No. 1/08 dated 7.1.2007, or the impugned order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, in Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET). It is also submitted that sufficient opportunities had been given to the appellant, but he did not take part in the departmental inquiry, deliberately avoiding the same, nor did he respond to the notice dated 28.11.2007 for hearing on the point of punishment. Learned counsel further submitted that there are serious charges of defalcation of school fund against the appellant and as such there is no illegality in the impugned order of punishment, rather a lenient view was taken by the respondents against the appellant by imposing a fine of Rs. 15,000/- only upon him and sufficient opportunity was given to him to deposit the same. The appellant did not deposit the fine, due to which his services stood terminated. It was also found that sufficient money was there in the Bank account of the appellant, but in spite of that he had not deposited the amount of fine in order to save his service. It is also submitted that after bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand from the State of Bihar, there is no School Service Board in the State of Jharkhand, and accordingly, there was no question of taking any approval from the said Board for termination of -4- service of the appellant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is fit to be dismissed.
7. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to attend and defend himself in the departmental proceeding, but the appellant did not avail the opportunity and deliberately avoided the departmental proceeding. Even at the time of passing the punishment order, sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant, which he did not avail, nor he gave any representation. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no knowledge about the availability of sufficient fund in his Bank account, cannot be believed and this submission could not even be taken into consideration. The fact remains that there are serious charges of defalcation of school fund against the appellant, which stood proved in the departmental proceeding and the punishment order was imposed upon the appellant following the due process. The Jharkhand Education Tribunal in its impugned order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed in Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET), has discussed everything in detail and has passed a speaking order, dismissing the application of the appellant.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality either in the impugned order of punishment bearing No. 1/08 dated 7.1.2007, or the impugned order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, in Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET). Consequently, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 9th of June, 2017.
N.A.F.R./ Amitesh/-