JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.

In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case was taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers had no objection with regard to the proceeding which was held through Video Conferencing and there was no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter was reserved for Judgment on 28.06.2021 and the same is being disposed of finally.

PRAYER

2. In the instant writ application prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the office order as contained in Memo No. 4533, dated 29.10.2015, passed by the District Superintendent of Education (Respondent No. 4), whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service with retrospective effect from 27.06.2014. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the district of Dhanbad on 06.07.1988. There was no complaint from any corner against the petitioner and she discharged her duties diligently and to the satisfaction of all. After rendering 26 years of service, petitioner was convicted vide Judgment dated 27.06.2014, passed in G.R. No. 2883 of 2001 [T.R. No. 35 of 2014], for the offence under Section 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. A memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide memo no. 980, dated 01.04.2015. Thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from the service vide office order as contained in Memo No. 4533, dated 29.10.2015 with retrospective effect from 27.06.2014. Being aggrieved with harsh order of dismissal from retrospective effect, petitioner has knocked door of this Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had a long unblemished service career and she was never put in custody even for a single day. During the trial and even after her conviction, petitioner was on bail. Learned counsel further submitted that order of dismissal is solely based on conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. This is a peculiar case where though petitioner is merely Gotni (wife of Bhaisur) of the complainant but has been convicted in the case. Learned counsel further submitted that conviction of the petitioner has no nexus with discharging of her duty as a Teacher and as such dismissal from service merely on the ground of conviction is not at all justified and needs interference. Petitioner has rendered 26 long years of pensionable service and at this stage punishment of dismissal from the service is too harsh. Petitioner is a widow and has a marriageable daughter. Learned counsel further argued that there is no provision under the law that if a person is convicted in a criminal case, he/she may be dismissed from the service and as such, there is no ground to dismiss petitioner from the service. Learned counsel further argued that even under the Bihar (Now Jharkhand) State Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceeding) Rules, 1994, there is no provision that if a teacher is convicted in a criminal case, dismissal is the only punishment to be awarded. Learned counsel further argued that impugned order has been passed with retrospective effect, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law.

5. Relying upon the Judgment passed in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 at page 110, learned counsel submitted that it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy,