Himachal Pradesh High Court
Meena Arora vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 1 April, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWPOA No. 730 of 2019
Date of Decision: 1.4.2023
_____________________________________________________________________
Meena Arora
.........Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh K Dogra, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General and Mr. Rahul
Thakur, Advocate, Deputy Advocate General,
for the State.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 21.2.2011 passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 88 of 2009, titled Meena Arora v.
State of HP and Ors., praying therein to set-aside the penalty of withholding three increments in a disciplinary proceedings, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS -2- proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, .
praying therein for following relief:
"1. That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the petitioner be granted al consequential reliefs thereof."
2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that petitioner, who was working as TGT (NM) Govt. Middle School Kalari, GSSS Gumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., was served with charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the charges that she ahd been disobeying the orders of Headmaster/Incharge of the School and had been misbehaving with other staff members and students of the school. After conducting inquiry into the charges leveled in the complaint made by PTA/guardian of GMS, Kallari, penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect under Rule 16 of CCS(CCA) Rules came to be imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 18.4.2007.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order of penalty, petitioner approached the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA NO. 1283 of 2007, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 6.6.2007, with direction that petition shall be treated as representation to the respondent No.1, who shall decide the same in accordance with law, however fact remains that Principal Secretary, Education, rejected the representation vide order dated ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS -3- 20.7.2007 and as such, petitioner approached this court by way of .
CWP No. 88 of 2009, thereby laying therein challenge to aforesaid order dated 20.7.2007, passed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.
4. Before case at hand could be heard and decided by this Court on its merits, matter again came to be remanded to respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 21.2.2011, passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Vide order dated 21.2.2011, this Court directed respondent No.1 to decide the representation in terms of order dated 6.6.2007, passed by the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1283 of 2007 within two months. Respondent No.1 in compliance to the aforesaid direction, considered the matter afresh and after having afforded the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner passed order, thereby modifying the penalty of withholding three increments to that of one increment. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order passed by respondent No.1.
5. Mr. Rakesh K. Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner while making this Court peruse inquiry report as well as evidence led on record by the respective parties vehemently argued that charge framed against the petitioner as taken note herein above, never came to be proved in accordance with law and as such, there was no ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS -4- occasion, if any, for the Principal Secretary (Education) to impose .
penalty of withholding one increment.
6. Mr. Rajan Kahol learned Additional Advocate General while making this court peruse findings returned by the inquiry officer vis-à-vis article of charges vehemently argued that though charges stood proved against the petitioner, but yet respondent No.1 has taken lenient view by modifying the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and as such, no interference is called for.
7. Having perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this court finds that charge against the petitioner that she had been disobeying the orders of Headmaster/Incharge of the school and had been mis-behaving with the other staff members and students of the school stood proved, but yet respondent No.1 taking lenient view modified the earlier penalty of withholding three increments imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules. There is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner while working as TGT in Govt.
Middle School, Kallari, District Bilaspur, was not only disobeying order of headmaster of the school, but also misbehaved with other staff members and students of the school. Evidence made available on record by the department reveals that majority of teachers and number of students deposed during inquiry proceedings against the ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS -5- petitioner with regard to her ill behaviour. Moreover, this Court finds .
that complaint against the petitioner was not lodged by any teacher or student of the school, rather same was made by PTA of the GMS, meaning thereby, there was collective complaint on behalf of the students of the school with regard to misbehavior of the petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances narrated herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the order imposing penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, order imposing penalty stands modified vide order dated 22.7.2011, whereby respondent No.1 has modified the aforesaid punishment of withholding three increments to one increment with cumulative effect.
8. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural irregularity, if any, committed by the inquiry officer while conducting inquiry qua the charge framed against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that due opportunity of hearing was afforded by the inquiry officer to the petitioner before submitting inquiry report. Similarly, order impugned in the instant proceedings clearly reveals that respondent No.1 while deciding representation of the petitioner in terms of judgment passed by this Court not only afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, but she was also permitted to place on record documents, if any.
::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS -6-9. Consequently in view of the above, this Court finds no .
merit in the present petition and as such, same is dismissed being devoid of any merits.
April 1, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2023 20:32:56 :::CIS