TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. N.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears for the State Respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER in the instant Writ Petition is aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.1993 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa (Respondent No. 3) inflicting the punishment of censure and withholding of one annual increment upon the petitioner. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Garhwa (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. The short facts which are necessary to be taken note of is that the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Korwadih, within Garhwa Circle, District Garhwa was found absent on 10.12.1993 by the Deputy Commissioner when the latter conducted a surprise inspection of the school. Consequently, the petitioner was put under suspension by the order dated 13.12.1993 as contained at Annexure -3 and the petitioner was asked to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. Upon receipt of the aforementioned notice, the petitioner filed his explanation on 15.12.1993 vide Annexure -4 and thereafter, on 23.12.1993, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order of punishment. On 19.1.1994, the petitioner filed his appeal which was followed by filing a written submission on 16.10.1995. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.8.1996, the Commissioner also rejected the appeal. It appears that while putting the petitioner under suspension, the Deputy Commissioner recorded in his order that on 10.12.1993, at about 2.30 p.m. he made an inspection of the school but he found the petitioner not present. The School going children informed the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner seldom came to school. On the basis of such complaint, the Deputy Commissioner came to a conclusion that there was no justification in continuing with the services of such teachers and he immediately put the petitioner under suspension and issued notices in the manner indicated above. Upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed his explanation and explained that between the period 9.12.1993 to 10.12.1993 (i.e. two days) he was on casual leave and that he had handed over charge during that period to one Shri Asarfi Ram. He also stated that the said Asarfi Ram had shown the attendance register to the Deputy Commissioner at the time of the inspection.
(3.) THE aforesaid explanation was filed on 15.12.1993 and 7/8 days thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Surprisingly, not one word was referred to nor stated in relation to the explanation that the petitioner had to offer for his casual absence of two days. All that the impugned order states and repeats is that the school going children had informed the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner frequently used to be absent and he showed little interest in his work. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, came to a conclusion that the children would not say anything with malice and therefore whatever they stated was accepted as gospel truth and accordingly, he passed the impugned order of punishment i.e. of censure and withholding of one annual increment.;