Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of memo No. 28 -41/03 -2341 dated 19.09.2003 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder four annual increments have been stopped with cumulative effects.
(2.) THE writ petitioner had joined her services in the year 1978 as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kapasara Govindpur, in the district of Dhanbad and subsequently she was transferred to Middle School, Barmasia, Dhanbad as an Assistant Teacher on 13.08.1982. An inspection was made in Middle School, Barmasia, Dhanbad on 28.08.2003 and it was detected that the petitioner was sleeping and in terms of the inspection report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3 vide memo No. 2114 dated 01.09.2003. Reply to the show cause followed on 05.09.2003 in which the petitioner enumerated several grounds to highlight the fact that she has been falsely implicated at the instance of the Headmaster. Upon consideration of the show cause an order as contained in memo No. 28 -41/03 -2341 dated 19.09.2003 was passed in which a penalty of stoppage of four yearly increments with cumulative effect was passed. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.A.G. for the respondents.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 19.09.2003 by submitting that on 28.08.2003 in course of inspection the petitioner was found sleeping but from the inspection report dated 01.09.2003, it appears that the In -charge Headmaster had categorically stated that the petitioner was sleeping during the leisure hours and as such the subsequent finding that the petitioner was sleeping during teaching hours was absolutely in contrast to such findings noted above. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an explanation was called for from the petitioner based on the findings of the inspection report dated 01.09.2003 and the petitioner had given the clarification with respect to the findings in the inspection report but while issuing the memo dated 19.09.2003 the respondent No. 3 has not considered the show cause submitted by the petitioner in its proper perspective. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been fastened with stoppage of four yearly increments with cumulative effect without holding a regular departmental proceeding and as such the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said punishment can be construed to be a major penalty and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the concerned authorities to conduct a regular departmental proceedings against the petitioner.;