Satya Narayan Lakra vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.—The petitioner has challenged the Notification No. 89 dated 4.3.2008 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Annexure 3) putting the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect on the ground that he left the meeting of 20 Point Programme held on 12.2.2008; called a press conference on 13.2.2008; and as certain administrative irregularities were found prima facie true against him.

Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that no charge sheet has been served and, therefore, no departmental enquiry has started against the petitioner as yet. He relied on paragraph-12 of the judgment in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, . He further submitted that on 5.4.2008, respondent No. 5 was posted at petitioner''s place until further orders, in view of the petitioner''s suspension. He further submitted that on 5.5.2008, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of suspension dated 4.3.2008, so far as petitioner is concerned.

Mr. M.S. Akhtar, learned S.C. II appearing for the State of Jharkhand, supported the impugned order and submitted that the department was justified in putting the petitioner under suspension. Referring to the counter affidavit, he submitted that certain irregularities in the appointment of Para Teachers were raised by the members in the meeting of 20 Point Programme of Palamau district, finally resulting in adjournment of the meeting with walk out of the members of the said meeting. The matter was enquired and it was prima facie found that the petitioner has committed irregularities in appointment of Para Teachers and misbehaved with the members as also conducted press conference at his residence and, therefore, he was rightly put under suspension.

Mr. Akhtar could not produce any thing to show that the petitioner has been served with the charge sheet even after expiry of more than four months from the date of his suspension. Therefore, the order of suspension dated 4.3.2008 cannot be allowed to continue and it is set aside with liberty to the department to take steps in accordance with law.

On this, Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, (Ashok Kumar Jha) referring to the order dated 13.2.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 337 of 2008 filed by Shri Jha submitted that Shri Jha has been harassed by the department by frequent transfer and posting and now he has been posted at the place where the petitioner was working recently on 5.4.2008, where he joined and, therefore, he may not be disturbed. She further submitted that stay of the order of suspension did not mean that petitioner has to be posted at the same place, from where he was suspended.

Mr. A.K. Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, in reply submitted that respondent No. 5 was posted at the place of the petitioner in view of his suspension on ad hoc basis and, therefore, he cannot claim to remain on the said post as a matter of right. He further submitted that Shri Jha has been trying his best to get his posting as District Superintendent of Education, palamau. He further submitted that when the petitioner was transferred from Palamau to Pindrajora, he filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3510 of 2007 which is pending in this Court in which an interim order was passed on 9.7.2007 to the effect that if not relieved, the petitioner may not be relieved.

In reply to this, Mrs. Sheela Prasad submitted that Shri Jha had already Mr. Jha joined on 27.6.2007, pursuant to the orders of chain transfer dated 21.6.2007 challenged by the petitioner in the said W.P. (S) No. 3510 of 2007, but suppressing the said fact, and without making Shri Jha party, petitioner filed the said writ petition on 28.6.2007 and, therefore, Shri Jha had to file an intervention application, bringing on record, inter alia, the said facts. She further submitted that in view of subsequent events the said writ petition has become infructuous for all practical purposes.

Mr. A.K. Sinha then referred to the notification dated 31.12.2007 and submitted that Mr. Jha was shown as waiting for posting whereas, petitioner was shown as District Superintendent of Education, Palamau and, therefore, Mr. Jha cannot contend that petitioner was relieved and he joined on 27.6.2007

To this, Mrs. Sheela Prasad submitted that though petitioner was relieved and joined on 27.6.2007, but on the purported basis of interim order, petitioner took charge of the post of District Superintendent of Education, Palamau.

It appears that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 both are claiming over the post of District Superintendent of Education, Palamau. However, the parties could not dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 can only request for their posting and cannot claim that they should be allowed to continue at a particular place or be posted at a particular place and, therefore, now the department is competent to take decision regarding the places of posting of the petitioner and respondent No. 5.

In the circumstances, the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Jharkhand (respondent No. 2) will see that a decision is taken regarding the posting of petitioner and respondent No. 5, at one or other place, in accordance with law and keeping in view the administrative exigencies and public interest only, as early as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.