Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing of the office order dated 01.12.2011 issued by respondent No. 3 i.e. the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka pertaining to termination from the services and for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(2.) The facts as disclosed in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner was appointed in services of the government on the post of Primary Teacher on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna issued by the respondent No. 3 as contained memo dated 23.06.2000. In pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner submitted his joining before the respondent No. 3 on 24.06.2000. While continuing as such in Primary School, Budhudih, in March, 2003, he suffered from mental illness which prevented him from joining the School and the father of the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 regarding mental illness to the petitioner and requested respondents that when the petitioner becomes medically fit then immediately he would join the services. The wife of the petitioner also informed the then respondent No. 3 regarding the mental condition of the petitioner and the petitioner continued to remain under medical treatment till February, 2011. Finally after remaining under the medication and under care and observation and the attending doctor -Dr. Ashish Soy, Neuropsychiatrist, CIP, Kanke, Ranchi examined him and found him fit for duty. The wife of the petitioner filed a representation dated 19.04.2011 before respondent No. 3 which did not evoke any response. Again representation by the wife of the petitioner before the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand was made on 22.02.2011. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand vide letter dated 20.05.2011 requested the respondent No. 2 to do the needful upon the representation submitted by the petitioner's wife but no order has been passed by the respondent No. 2 on joining of the petitioner. To the utter consternation, all of a sudden a press release was published in the daily news papers calling upon the petitioner and one another teacher to submit their defence before respondent No. 3 within 15 days failing which the decision with respect to termination of service would be taken. After coming to know about the aforesaid press release the petitioner submitted representation on 21.11.2011 along with medical prescriptions and fitness certificate before respondent No. 3 and requested to consider his case on sympathetic grounds and allow him to join his duties and the respondent No. 3 without considering the representation of the petitioner passed an order of termination from services as contained in office order dated 01.12.2011. Being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 01.12.2011 the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Per -contra a counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the contentions made in the writ applications. In the counter -affidavit, it has been inter alia submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable, since petitioner was absent from duty for more than eight years and the reliefs sought is not tenable. It has further been submitted that the petitioner without any information and without any notice to the authority, was absent in his school. He had not submitted or stated about his illness before the authority and first time on 19.04.2011, his wife filed an application for reinstatement of the petitioner. On the basis of the application filed by the wife of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 District Superintendent of Education, Dumka vide registered letter dated 21.04.2011 noticed him to appear and put the grievance before the office of the D.S.E., Dumka on 28.04.2011 but the petitioner did not appear and again vide order dated 06.05.2011 informed to the petitioner for appearance on 11.05.2011. But the petitioner did not appear before the authority. The respondents with no other alternative placed the matter under Sec. 76 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code before District Establishment Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka on 11.08.2011. On the said date, the committee had decided that D.S.E., Dumka through the daily newspaper asked the reason for absence in his duty since more than eight years and on the resolution passed in said committee, the D.S.E., Dumka through local newspaper "Dainik Jagran", "Hindustan" published notice to put his grievance before the authority and the petitioner on 22.11.2011 had filed his show cause and admitted that he was absent without any information and without notice to the authority. It has further been submitted that the authority after going through the show cause and the facts and circumstances, terminated the petitioner vide memo dated 01.12.2011 under Sec. 76 of Bihar/Jharkhand Service Code as evident from Annexure -A series to the counter -affidavit.;