Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rati Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 July, 2018
1 W.P. No.17069/2016
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.17069/2016.
(Smt. Rati Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others.)
Jabalpur, dated 26.07.2018.
Shri Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for respondent Nos.1,3,
4, 5, 6, 7 & 9/State.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent Nos.8 & 10 though served.
At the joint request of the parties, matter is heard finally. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of order dated 04.08.2016 (Annexure P-11) whereby she has been placed under suspension and also order dated 08.09.2016 (Annexure P-14) by which the charge-sheet has been issued to her.
The challenge is founded basically on the ground that the action taken by the respondents suspending the petitioner from service and issuing a charge-sheet is totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminating in nature and also suffers from mala fide. Not only this, the orders impugned also suffers from lack of jurisdiction.
As per the petitioner, the Block Education Officer though issued an order placing the petitioner under suspension but he had no jurisdiction to do so. The charge-sheet is also issued by the same Authority having no jurisdiction, even to issue charge- sheet to the petitioner. As contended by the petitioner that the action for suspending her and initiating disciplinary proceedings is not bona fide but it is at the instance of respondent No.2 who is the Education Minister and very near to respondent No.8 who is also in relation to the petitioner. There is some civil dispute going on between the families of the 2 W.P. No.17069/2016 petitioner and respondent No.8. The petitioner has contended that after suspending the petitioner on a flimsy ground that during the course of inspection, she was late by 10 minutes and reached the school at 10:10 am. The said action has already been assailed by the petitioner saying that it is discriminatory because there were other teachers not available in the school but action has been taken only against her. As per the petitioner, a fake and unsigned complaint was made against her to the Education Minister which was shown to be a basis for initiating action against the petitioner. The petitioner has also contended that in the said complaint, the name of some persons have been shown like Lalla Choudhary who had infact died much prior to making complaint and as such, it is clear that the complaint was fake. The petitioner has also contended that a report has also been submitted by a Committee which has inspected the school on 04.08.2016 but in the said report, nothing was found against the petitioner, despite that pressure created by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.8, an incompetent Authority took action against the petitioner. The Authority which issued the order of suspension as well the charge-sheet has also been made party eo nomine and he has also given his statement that he acted only at the instance of threat given by the District Education Officer saying that the instructions from respondent No.2 (i.e. Education Minister) has come to place the petitioner under suspension and respondent No.8 has also stated that the District Education Officer was apprised that he is not the Competent Authority to take action against the petitioner, despite that under the threat, he had to do so. Under the aforesaid premise, the petitioner has tried to substantiate that the action taken against her is not only arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory but mala fide too.
In support of her contention, the petitioner has filed number of documents and photographs showing that 3 W.P. No.17069/2016 respondent No.2 is near acquaintance with respondent No.8. As per the petitioner, respondent No.8 is a cousin-brother of her husband, who keeps enmity with her husband and, therefore, he is persuading respondent No.2 to harass the petitioner and at his instance, the husband of the petitioner has also been transferred at a distance of 1000 kilometers from the present place of posting i.e. Katni.
The official respondents have filed their reply saying that the alternative remedy of appeal is available for challenging the order of suspension. They have also tried to justify that the action of the Authority which has issued the orders having competence. It is also stated by the respondents in their reply that the correctness of charges made against the petitioner cannot be examined by this Court. So far as the allegations regarding mala fide are concerned, it is stated by the official respondents that the allegations made by the petitioner are bald and vague and they do not constitute any mala fide. Therefore, the petition, in such circumstances, cannot be entertained on the ground of mala fide. As per the respondents, the statement submitted by respondent No.9, the Authority which has issued the orders impugned is not part of the official record, therefore, no cognizance can be taken on the said statement. As per respondents, respondent No.9 since retired on 30.09.2016, therefore, the petitioner succeeded to procure such document but even on the basis of that document, no interference can be made in the orders impugned. It is also stated by the respondents that even otherwise, respondent No.2 being a public representative can issue direction for taking statutory measures to the Government officers if any complaint is received against any such officer.
The respondent No.2 has also filed a reply denying the allegations of mala fide.
4 W.P. No.17069/2016The respondent No.10 has also filed reply and acknowledged his statement which has been filed by the petitioner to substantiate that the allegations made by her against respondent No.2 are correct.
Considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the documents available on record.
As far as the competency of the Authority which has issued the orders impugned is concerned, the petitioner has placed over the instructions issued on 14.09.2016 and amendment made in Madhya Pradesh Adhyapak Samverg (Employment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2008 by way of notification dated 09.08.2016 saying that now the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat is the Competent Authority but not the Authority which has issued the order.
However, looking to the instructions dated 14.09.2016 and Gazette Notification dated 09.08.2016, it is clear that the amendment has been made only in Schedule-I attached with the Rules, 2008 and Schedule-I does not deal with the Disciplinary Authority of Sahayak Adhyapak. On the contrary, the instructions issued on 26.03.2009 very categorically provides that as per the provisions of Rule 8(a) of the Rules, 2008, the Additional Chief Executive Officer, School Education is also a Disciplinary Authority for the Sahayak Adhyapak. Accordingly, orders impugned issued by the Additional Chief Executive Officer who is the Block Education Officer at Block Level cannot be set aside on the ground of competency of the Authority. As such, this contention of the petitioner has no substance and is hereby rejected.
However, so far as the allegations of mala fide are concerned, the petitioner has filed number of documents including the photographs showing the proximity between respondent Nos.2 and 8 and they know each other well. The 5 W.P. No.17069/2016 petitioner has very categorically averred that respondent No.2 has resolved the dispute which was between respondent No.8 and the then MLA (Shri K.K. Shrivastava) and in this regard, photographs and paper cutting were also filed. The petitioner has also filed certain documents showing dispute regarding immovable property between respondent No.8 and family members of her husband. The petitioner has also filed statements of respondent No.10, who is the Authority which has issued the orders impugned. It is also seen that respondent No.10 has also supported the allegations made by the petitioner in her petition. Surprisingly, respondent No.2 filed the reply but not denied these allegations, however a very casual denial has been made in the reply. He has also not denied his relations with respondent No.8. Even in the reply, it is not stated by respondent No.2 that he has received any complaint against the petitioner whereas the official respondents, in their reply have stated that being a public representative, respondent No.2 can initiate action against any officer if a complaint is received against such officer. The stand taken by the official respondents is contrary to the stand taken by respondent No.2.
It is apt to mention here that the statement given by respondent No.10 cannot be ignored under the existing circumstance of this case because respondent No.10 has also been impleaded as a party and in his reply even he has very categorically stated that he was under pressure and threat was given to him by the District Education Officer saying that a phone call from respondent No.2 had been received for taking action against the petitioner. Looking to the report of the Committee, which is available on record as Annexure P-9, it is clear that the Committee has also observed that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and allegations made against her are not correct. The respondents have not denied this enquiry report submitted by the Committee on 04.08.2016. The 6 W.P. No.17069/2016 petitioner has also very categorically stated not only she but her husband has also been victimized by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.8 and also got transferred at the distance of almost 1000 kilometers but this fact was also not denied by respondent No.2. It is also noteworthy to mention here that respondent No.8 has also been impleaded as a party eo nomine but he did not submit reply nor denied the allegations made against him.
In a normal circumstance a Sahayak Adhyapak or any other employee of such status cannot dare to go against the Minister of the Department and allege against him directly and make him party by his name in the petition. It itself is sufficient to infer the plight of the petitioner when nothing was left for her and having no option but to come forward to fight against the highest Authority i.e. Minister of the Department. Form the record, it is clear that ample material has been placed on record by the petitioner to constitute mala fide against respondent No.2 and those have not been properly replied by the official respondents as well as respondent No.2. Not only this, but looking to the charge made against the petitioner, it appears to be unjustified that a Teacher has been suspended in the year 2016 and charge-sheet has been issued in the year 2016, but so far enquiry has not been concluded and even order of suspension has not been revoked. The Government is also suffering loss because a Teacher has been deprived to perform the duties of teaching for infact no reason. There is no justification for inaction on the part of the respondents as to why, when the charge-sheet was issued in the year 2016 leveling flimsy charge, the enquiry has not been concluded so far.
In view of the overall circumstances, it can be easily gathered that it is a fit case in which not only mala fide has been alleged but it has been duly substantiated by the petitioner 7 W.P. No.17069/2016 by adducing cogent material and also in view of settled principle of law if action of the Authority suffers from mala fide that cannot be allowed to sustain.
In view of above, since the orders impugned are illegal and unjustified as action has been taken with mala fide intention against the petitioner, therefore, the same are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and grant her all consequential benefits including full salary for the period during which she remained under suspension within a period of two months from today.
The petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Devashish Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2018.07.31 17:39:18 +05'30'