- (1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the office order as contained in Memo No. 316 dated 2.4.2008 issued under the signature of District Superintendent of Education, Singbhum East at Jamshedpur by which he has been dismissed from service.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as has been pleaded by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner had joined his service on 7.3.1983 as a B.Sc. Trained Science Teacher and after being posted from one place to another he was transferred and posted to Balak Middle School, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur on 19.9.2001. After transfer of the headmistress of the said school the petitioner has been made acting headmaster of the said school with effect from 26.7.2006. The petitioner has been served with a letter No. 909 dated 9.7.2007 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur, informing him that one lady assistant teacher of the said school had lodged a complaint against him for using unparliamentary language (Annexure-1) and as such, the petitioner was directed to appear on 13.7.2007 in the office of Executive Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared before the Executive Magistrate on the date fixed. The petitioner denied entire allegation levelled against him in the complaint, however he was suspended by the order of District Superintendent of Education, Singbhum East, Jamshedpur, vide memo No. 1530 dated 31.7.2007. And secondly the petitioner was again served with letter No. 992 dated 24.7.2007 to submit his explanation regarding a short message allegedly sent on 23.2.2007 through the mobile using derogatory words. After submission of reply by the petitioner when it was found not satisfactory a charge sheet was issued vide memo No. 1601 dated 06.8.2007 in terms thereof the petitioner has filed his reply, denying the entire allegations. Thereafter, the duly appointed inquiry officer has submitted his report, finding the charges proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has accepted the said finding of the inquiry officer and imposed a punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 2.4.2008. The order of dismissal has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the reply to the second show cause notice given by the petitioner is not at all been considered by the disciplinary authority and the second point has been raised by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the complainant has already been transferred on 22.6.2007, vide Annexure 3, annexed to the writ petition and as such it is incorrect to allege against the petitioner that he has misbehaved with the said lady teacher, on the basis of which the complaint has been lodged by her on 28.6.2007. The main emphasis has been given by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that when the petitioner has denied the entire allegation levelled against him by virtue of reply to the second show cause notice it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to consider the same but it has not been considered and without applying its mind in the mechanical manner the order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority.
(3.) The respondent-State has filed counter-affidavit supporting the impugned order, stating in detail that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and it has been argued on behalf of counsel for the respondent that since the inquiry officer has found the charges proved against the petitioner hence, there was no need to write a detailed judgment by him.;