- (1.) PURSUANT to this Court's order dated 10.01.2012, Sri J.K.Verma, presently working as Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Shahjahanpur, as identified by Sri P.D.Tripathi, Advodate is present. It is admitted by him that after suspension order dated 8.9.2008 no further action was taken against the petitioner and no charge sheet was ever issued. However, he submitted that after receiving the order dated 10.01.2012 passed by this Court inquiring as to what action has been taken in the matter and why petitioner has been kept under suspension for such a long time without any inquiry in the matter, an order has been passed revoking suspension on 13.1.2012 pursuant whereto the petitioner has joined.
(2.) IN the affidavit filed by respondent No.3 nothing has been said as to why suspension of the petitioner continued for more than 3 years and what disciplinary action proceeded in the meanwhile. In the short counter affidavit sworn by Sri J.K.Verma, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as "BSA") he has said that petitioner was placed under suspension on account of her unauthorized absence and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikari was appointed as enquiry officer. A report was submitted by Finance and Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha 16.10.2008 wherein he has endorsed observation made by Additional District Magistrate and has also approved the proposed action against responsible persons. However even this affidavit nowhere shows as to when the petitioner was issued any charge sheet, whether any oral enquiry was ever conducted or not and what happened after order of suspension was passed on 8.9.2008 whereafter Deputy District Basic Education Officer, Shahjahanpur was appointed as enquiry officer. Apparently it appears that after placing the petitioner under suspension, Educational authorities slept over the matter, allowed the petitioner to enjoy subsistence allowance for more than three years without any enquiry whatsoever creating a legal lacuna in her favour so that as an when she comes to this Court against inaction on the part of respondent, she may get an order in her favour.
(3.) THIS Court, however, when summoned respondents No.2 and 3 with a clear direction to show as to what action was taken in this matter and why petitioner has been kept under suspension for such a long time without any inquiry, in order to cover up entire inaction and wastage of public revenue in the shape of payment of subsistence allowance and later on full salary, passed revocation order on 13.01.2012 reinstating the petitioner. THIS kind of attitude on the part of respondent No.3, which has also gone unmonitored by respondent No.2 is really highly derogatory, arbitrary and impertinent. They are holding public office and custodian of public funds. They cannot meddle with public funds by simply distributing it to the persons not doing any work at all. Basic education has been given a very important role in our Constitution also. Earlier directive principles requires that State shall take steps for providing free primary education to young people, but later on realizing its importance, which may reflect in the literacy rate of the country, right to primary education has been made a fundamental right vide Article 21-A of Constitution. Even the parents are under a constitutional duty to ensure primary education to their wards. THIS constitutional obligation cannot be discharged unless effective machinery and infrastructure is made available. THIS includes availability of competent teaching staff in the schools, their regular presence and devoted attendance for duty. Judicial cognizance can be taken, (particularly in the light of a large number of cases pending before this Court in which State Government has taken a stand) that thousands and thousands vacancies of primary teachers are lying. It is more shameful that primary institutions, which already have a teacher, are made without him/her on account of an action of educational authority for which he does not feel any accountability or responsibility. He made the institution without teacher by placing the petitioner under suspension and then allow that situation to continue for years together. If the petitioner was not performing her job, it was a case of urgent attention and action so that another teacher could have been appointed to do the job but on the one hand educational authorities, the respondent No.3 shown as he intends to take action for ensuring proper presence of teacher in the school but in effect he failed in entirety. THIS inaction, in my view, cannot be without any reason or indeliberate. In fact no justification, explanation or reason whatsoever has been given for this kind of inaction on the part of respondents. The Court is thus justified in believing that it is deliberate and surpasses the territory of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and irrationality. Such an official cannot be allowed to go scot-free without accounting for the public funds. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: i. For the entire period the petitioner remained under suspension she shall be entitled for full salary since suspension is wholly unjustified as no departmental enquiry was ever conducted against her. ii. The amount of salary paid to the petitioner without actual discharge of duty on and after 8.9.2008 i.e. after suspension till reinstatement shall be realized from respondent No.3 i.e. the officer presently holding the office who is admittedly working in the said office since 2007. iii. The Secretary, Basic Education shall also initiate departmental enquiry against respondent No.3 as to why and in what circumstances, though petitioner was placed under suspension, but no enquiry was conducted against her, and thereafter a situation was created in which she got reinstated without any liability or responsibility. The aforesaid enquiry shall be completed by Secretary, Basic Education within three months and the ultimate order passed by it shall be placed before this Court after three months. This case will be listed in the week commencing 14th May, 2012 only for this purpose and nothing else. iv. The petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which I quantify to Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid at the first instance by respondent No.1 but it would have liberty to recover the same from respondent No.3, the present incumbent holding the said office. ;