Jharkhand High Court
Harimohan Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 883 of 2021
----------
Harimohan Ram. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School
Education and Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranch, having office at Combined Building,
P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.Kotwali, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chotanagpur Division,
Having office at near Kutchery, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, Town and District-
Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi, having office at Combined
Building, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Town and District-Ranchi.
5. Area Education Officer, Mandar, having office at P.O. & P.S. Mandar, Dist. Ranchi.
6. Sri Sunil Oraon, ... ... ... ...Respondents
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV.
-----------
04/ 15.07.2021 The petitioner confines his prayer for quashing of the order dated
09.02.2021 contained in memo No. 480 issued under the pen and signature of District
Superintendent of Education, Ranchi.
Bereft of unnecessary details, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in Government Elementary School (Middle School, Sakarpada, Mandar) on
12.09.1994 and presently, the petitioner is in Grade i.e. Trained Graduate Teacher.
It is specific case of the petitioner that in the entire service career his
work was found satisfactory and there was no complaint against the petitioner but one
fine morning on frivolous ground petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated
09.02.21, Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
strenuously argues that order of suspension is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned
Counsel further submits that in every departmental proceeding, suspension is not
warranted. In the instant case without assigning any reason, the order of suspension has
been issued. Reasons ought to have been disclosed at least in the counter-affidavit but
the same has not been done.
Further it has been argued that petitioner an Assistant Teacher is being
harassed at the hands of the respondents and his Headquarters has been fixed at Tamar
which is about 150 k.ms away from present place of posting i.e. Mandar.
Mr. Tandon very fairly submits that though petitioner is getting
subsistence allowance but he is aggrieved by the cryptic, capricious and illegal order of
suspension issued by the respondents.
To buttress his argument, learned Counsel places heavy reliance on the
judgment of this Court in case of "Ganauri Mistry vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors." ,
reported in (2013) 3 AIR Jhar.-R 76 and also in case of "State of Haryana v. Hari
Ram Yadav, reported in A.I.R. 1994 SC 1262.
Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed.
Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents
vehemently opposes the contention of Mr. Tandon and submits that as the appointing
authority was satisfied with suspension of the delinquent employees, order to that effect
was issued.
Learned Counsel further submits that in the impugned order it is very
much clear that why the petitioner was put under suspension. However, looking at the
stage of enquiry, learned Counsel submits that departmental proceeding is likely to be
concluded very soon and if a direction is given by this Court the same shall be
concluded within a stipulated period.
Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties across
the bar and taking into consideration the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court rendered in the case of "State of Haryana vrs. Hari Ram Yadav", reported in
AIR 1994 SC 1262 and that of "Ganauri Mistry Vrs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.",
case reported in (2013) 3 AIR Jhar R76 and also in the case of "State of Orissa vrs.
Bimal Kumar Mohanty", reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296, this Court is of the view that
there is no quarrel to the settled proposition of law that in every departmental
proceeding suspension is not warranted. However, in the instant case petitioner is
aggrieved by non-recital of reasons for suspension and also as to why the petitioner has
been harassed by shifting his Headquarters to Tamar which is about 150 k.ms away
from Mandar. As it has already been brought on record that departmental proceeding is
likely to be concluded very soon, I hereby direct the respondents to conclude the
departmental proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order and petitioner shall also fully cooperate in the departmental
proceeding till final order is passed.
Let it be made clear that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded
within the aforesaid period, suspension of the petitioner shall automatically be revoked.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands
disposed of.
[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J]
P.K.S.
