Meghalaya High Court
Shri. Barnabas R Marak vs . State Of Meghalaya &Ors. on 26 June, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MEG 117
Author: H.S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S. Thangkhiew
1
Serial No. 12
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 306 of 2015
Date of Decision: 26.06.2019
Shri. Barnabas R Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya &Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) : Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv. for R 4.
Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA. for R 1-3.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
ORAL
1. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner serving as an Assistant Teacher of Mitapgiri Deficit M.E. School was terminated from service vide order dated 31.10.2015 by the respondent No. 4 allegedly without being heard and also without any approval being obtained from the respondents authorities as required under Section 9 of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981. As such, prayer has been made that the impugned order of termination be set aside and quashed as being illegal and not in accordance with law.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never indulged in any act of gross misconduct and insubordination as mentioned in the impugned termination order. He further submits that a prior permission of the competent authority i.e. the 2 respondent No. 3 is a condition precedent for the termination of service of the petitioner and that the Managing Committee of the School cannot by a mere resolution terminate the service of the petitioner, as has been done in the present case.
4. The learned counsel further submits that in the interest of natural justice, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the passing of the impugned order, but here the petitioner was not even informed that such an action was contemplated against him. As such, he prays that the impugned termination order being illegal and not in accordance with set procedure and law, be set aside and quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service.
5. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that the petitioner was negligent and irregular towards his duty and also had engaged in the acts of misconduct and indulged in financial impropriety, which compelled the respondent No. 4 to take action. He further submits that it is not a fact that the petitioner was not given due notice, inasmuch as on 17.04.2015, he had been directed to produce certain documents with regard to transaction of funds, which were done by the petitioner without consultation with the school authority. He also submits that in this backdrop, in the meeting of the Managing Committee held on 17.04.2015, Resolution No. 6 was adopted, whereby the conduct of the petitioner was deemed inappropriate. Resolution No. 6 from the proceedings of the Managing Committee meeting dated 17.04.2015 is quoted herein below:
"Resolution No. 6: It is known to all through Bank Statement Record that Shri, Barnabash R. Marak, Additional Assistant teacher had withdrawn Cash from the School Account for three consecutive times without concern with the Head Master cum secretary and the Committee. It is of great disgrace and demoralization to the Head Master and the Committee considering the terms and conditions of the school as well as department. Though he had made this great mistake the meeting has unanimously with pleasure forgiven for the first time. But it is decided that the internal Audit against this misconduct should be conducted not-only against the said above withdrawn moneys but also other main 3 financial matters which he maintained from 1-2-2014 to 18- 7-2014 at which period he had taken unruly over the change of Head Master cum secretary under the case, Admission fees of the students for 2014 year and two nos. of school seals (1), President and the Head Master cum secretary should also be submitted which also not yet submitted so far."
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, however in all fairness, concedes that due process and procedure has not been adopted in passing the impugned order dated 31.10.2015, whereby the petitioner had been summarily terminated.
6. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1-3 submits that it is a pre-condition that as per the rules before a teacher is terminated or released from service, the approval of the competent authority is to be obtained, which in this case perhaps was not adhered to. He further submits that in this regard, the respondent No. 2 had also inquired from the respondent No. 3 as regards to the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted and whether due process had been adopted, but the query was never replied to by the respondent No.3.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and examined the materials on record and considered the submissions.
8. The basic contention in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner has been terminated from service in total violation of the principles of natural justice and the requirement as contained under Section 9 of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981. It is also noted that in the course of submissions, that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 also does not refute this contention, that the procedure adopted was not in accordance with law, though there were allegations on negligence, subordination and misconduct against the petitioner.
9. In view of the stated submissions of the learned counsels and the situation of the case, the impugned order of termination is unsustainable in the circumstances aforesaid. As such, the impugned order dated 31.10.2015 4 being illegal and in violation of the principles of Natural Justice and the provisions of the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981, is hereby set aside and quashed and the Respondent No. 4 directed to take back the petitioner into service. The quashing of the impugned order however will not be a bar to the respondent No. 4, to initiate appropriate proceedings on the allegations as has been made out in the Resolution.
10. With the following directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated and disposed of accordingly.
Judge Meghalaya 26.06.2019 "D. Nary, PS"