Disciplinary action without providing a hearing violates principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division (Respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred against the order contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated 24.01.2017 wherein the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner which include punishment of censure and stoppage of Payment and other allowances of his salary during the suspension period except subsistence allowances, was dismissed without giving any cogent reason.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated 24.01.2017passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment which includes punishment of censure and stoppage of payment and other allowances of his salary during the suspension period except subsistence allowances while differing with the enquiry report.

iii. During the pendency of this writ application, direct the concerned respondent to stay the operation of the order dated 24.01.2017 contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated initiated against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.07.2004. While serving as the In-charge Headmaster at Middle School, Patrodih, he was suddenly suspended based on complaints and an inspection report dated 17.08.2016. He submitted an explanation on 03.10.2016. The charges against him included issues like poor attendance records, failure to hold school meetings, incomplete registers, under-utilized classrooms in complete construction of building and poor teaching performance. He gave a detailed reply to each charge on 24.12.2016. After departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer cleared him of all charges and submitted the report on 09.01.2017. Despite this, the District Superintendent of Education punished him vide order dated 24.01.2017 with censure and stoppage of salary and allowances (except subsistence allowance) for the period of suspension. He appealed the decision in Service Appeal No. 194/2017-18 to the Commissioner, Santhal Pragana, but his appeal was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that Respondent No. 3 has committed a gross illegality by punishing the present petitioner while differing with the enquiry report and also without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also submits that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is bad and against the established procedure. He further submits that Respondent No. 2, as the appellate authority, was duty bound to assign reason while dismissing the appeal against the punishment but he failed to do so. He submits that the actions taken against the petitioner is arbitrary and mala-fide.

4. The learned counsel for respondent submits that the Enquiry Officer adhering due procedure submitted his report, whereby and where under he has admitted that the condition of school is unsatisfactory. He further submitted that discipline is very important in the department, and since the petitioner neglected his duty, he must face the consequences. He submits that the action of the disciplinary authority of differing with the enquiry report is justified.

5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the disciplinary authority did not give ample opportunity of hearing to the pet