Ajay Kumar Singh vs District Education Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 2620 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

            Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1640 of 2023

Ajay Kumar Singh                                     ........Petitioner

                               Versus

District Education Officer, (Elementary
Education) and Others                   ........Respondents
Present:-
      Mr. Ravi Babulkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure no.8) and charge-sheet dated 24.02.2023 (Annexure no.11) together with the entire disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. He has further challenged his suspension order dated 24.11.2022, passed by Authorized Controller, Savitri Shiksha Niketan, Junior High School, Harrawala, Doiwala, Dehradun i.e. respondent no.3 (Annexure No.10).

2. It is the contention of petitioner that he was placed under suspension in the month of November, 2022, and till date, though two charge-sheets have been issued against him, but the inquiry has yet not been concluded. It is further pleaded that no one can be placed under suspension for a long and indefinite period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the suspension mainly on the ground that in the suspension order, the respondent-Institution has already imputed charges against him, therefore, the suspension order is unsustainable, inasmuch as, the respondent-Authority, in a pre-determined manner, has decided the fate of ongoing inquiry. It is reflected from the charge-sheet(s) issued by the respondents against

the petitioner that he was holding a B.T.C certificate besides B.Ed. Degree issued to him by the 'Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh' in the year 1991 and 2000 respectively. On the basis of those documents, petitioner was given appointment in the respondent-Institution as a Head Master.

4. The case of the respondents is that the aforesaid B.T.C. certificate and B.Ed. Degree are not recognized by the N.C.T.E. Therefore, at the time of entry in service, relying upon such documents, the appointment has been procured by the petitioner.

5. It is case of the petitioner that although he was placed under suspension in the year 2022, another charge- sheet was issued to him (Annexure no.11) by the Disciplinary Authority on 24.02.2023, but neither in the charge-sheet nor in the suspension order, there is any mention of any such discrepancy by the Inquiry Officer. It is not certain as to how and when inquiry proceedings would be concluded against the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent charge-sheet, which was issued after three years of the first one, there was any mention as to what happened to the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020.

6. It is emphatically argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that now, in the pending inquiry, an inquiry report has been submitted (Annexure no.13 to the writ petition), which has clearly concluded that the certificate of B.T.C. possessed by the petitioner is of the year 1991 and degree of B.Ed. possessed by the petitioner is of the year 2000, while the N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 was enforced on 01.07.1995. It is also concluded in the inquiry-report that the respondent- Department, on the basis of aforesaid degree, had already given approval to the service of the petitioner and he has been

working since the date of his appointment, and thereafter, since the institution was brought under grant-in-aid.

7. It is also submitted that even after submitting the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer/Authorized Controller vide order dated 04.07.2023 has again called upon the petitioner to submit his reply to the inquiry-report dated 28.04.2023. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is nothing but sheer harassment of the petitioner at the hands of the respondent-Department for the reason that, after submission of the inquiry report, it is only the Disciplinary Authority, which has got a right to call upon the petitioner to give explanation to the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer.

8. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the same set of charges an F.I.R. has also been lodged by the Competent Authority against many Teachers including the petitioner, on 21.09.2017, which was registered as F.I.R. No.231 of 2017 in Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun and the same has been quashed by this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment and dated 31.07.2023 order is also annexed (Annexure no.15) to the writ petition.

9. Per contra, Standing Counsel for the State submits that the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.05.2020 (Annexure no.8) was issued by the Competent Authority i.e., District Education Officer (Elementary), Dehradun and thereafter, a subsequent charge-sheet was issued on 24.02.2023 by the Authorized Controller/Deputy Education Officer, Doiwala, Dehradun and there is no illegality in issuing two charge- sheets and the same can be treated as continuation of the initial charge-sheet issued by the Competent Authority.

10. So far as argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fact that the degree of the petitioner has been issued much prior to the enactment of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 is concerned, it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the State that decision on the inquiry report is yet to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to this Court that since the petitioner has been placed under suspension vide order dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure no.10 to the writ petition) by the Authorized Controller during pendency of the inquiry, and the inquiry-report has also been submitted, but the manner in which the inquiry is being conducted by the respondents, it appears to be quite strange. It also appears that the respondents are not aware about the procedure of law qua proceeding against a person in the disciplinary proceedings. It is a case where two charge-sheets have been submitted and the subsequent charge-sheet does not find any mention of the fact as to the result of the previous charge-sheet. Moreover, the Inquiry Officer, after submitting the inquiry report, has again called upon the petitioner to give his explanation to the inquiry report, which is again very strange about conducting the inquiry proceedings. In the given facts, the Court is of the considered view that looking to the approach adopted by the respondents in conducting the inquiry, they would not be in a position to decide the disciplinary proceedings early in near future.

12. The petitioner was placed under suspension since 24.11.2022 and it has been nine months now. It can further be gathered that the criminal proceedings upon the same set of charges against the petitioner have been brought to an end by reason of an order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice, I am of the view that it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner under suspension for such a long period. Accordingly, the suspension order is directed to be stayed till the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings. The respondents are directed to conclude the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. (Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off)2.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.09.2023 PN