WPSS/1222/2005 of MAHADEV SINGH Vs STATE and ORS. on 29 December 2011

WPSS No.1222 of 2005Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Shri C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anoop Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Pundir, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Teacher in Junior High School. On 24.06.2000, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Co-ordinator in the Development Block Centre, Dunda, district Uttarkashi under the District Primary Education Project, Uttarakashi.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the morning of 05.07.2005, the petitioner took lift in truck no. U.A.10-4732, which was going towards village Chakon (Dhanari), which is the village of the petitioner. The truck was loaded with wooden sleepers/timber, but the petitioner was not aware about the same. Since, there was no transit pass available with the driver of the truck in which petitioner was traveling, the said truck was stopped by the Police and petitioner with truck driver and others was arrested. Thereafter, he was bailed out on 14.07.2005. On the information received from S.H.O., Thana Kotwali, Uttarkashi, the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Uttarkashi passed the order of suspension on 8/9-8-2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, on the ground that the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Uttarkashi is not appointing authority of the petitioner and is not competent authority in law to place the petitioner under suspension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointing authority of the petitioner is Expert Basic Education Officer under District Primary Education Project, Uttarkashi and not the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Uttarkashi. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that petitioner was a bonafide passenger in the truck and for transporting the wooden sleepers/timber without carrying transit pass, the driver of the truck should be punished not the petitioner.

The respondent no.2 filed a counter affidavit, in which it is mentioned that First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner on 05.07.2005 and petitioner remained in Jail from 05.07.2005 to 14.07.2005. On receipt of copy of First Information Report dated 05.07.2005 by S.H.O. Kotwali, Uttarkashi, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Uttarkashi passed the suspension order of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, nowhere it is mentioned that after passing the suspension order, whether any departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and whether any action in pursuance of said inquiry was taken against the petitioner.

On previous occasion, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents was asked by this Court to seek instructions from the concerned Additional District Education Officer about the status of disciplinary proceedings, if any. Today, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents submitted that Fax was sent to the concerned Additional District Education Officer, but no reply has been received by him till date.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Since, after filing of the First Information Report, the respondents have not initiated any departmental inquiry proceedings against the petitioner, I do not find it proper to keep the petitioner under suspension for a long period. The petitioner was suspended on 8/9-8-2005 and more than six years have passed, but respondents have not taken any further action in the matter. Only on this ground, I am allowing the writ petition. The writ petition is allowed. Order of suspension dated 8/9-8-2005, issued by the respondent no.2, is quashed. Stay vacation application (CLMA No.5683 of 2008) also stands disposed of.

Arpan

(V.K. Bist, J.)

29.12.2011