H.C.MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 20th of September, 2008, passed in Case No. 35 of 2008 (JET), by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi, whereby the application, filed by the appellant against his termination from service from respondent school, has been dismissed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi.
(3.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The appellant was appointed as a Assistant Teacher on 1.4.1986 in Graduate Trained Pay Scale in S.P.G. Mission High School, Chaibasa, which is a Minority Aided School. At the relevant time, the appellant was In-charge of the Examination Department and during the Matriculation Examination of the year 2006, the fees and forms were realised from the eligible students for appearing in the said examination. However, the Admit Cards of 13 students were not received from the Jharkhand Academic Council, and the students made complains to the Headmaster of the school on 12.2.2006. In order to save the career of the students, the school submitted the applications of those students along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- per student, amounting to Rs. 1,34,290/- in the Jharkhand Academic Council, whereupon, the students were allowed to appear in the examination. It was found that it was the appellant, who had realised fees and forms of the students and it was also found that out of the total money, realised from the students, the appellant had not deposited the amount of Rs. 11,838/- in the school fund and had misappropriated the said amount. Thereafter the appellant was suspended and his headquarter was also fixed in the same school, directing him to register his attendance in the school every day, but without giving any information to the concerned authorities, the appellant absented himself from the school unauthorizedly, and it was found that his house was locked. Show cause was issued to the appellant, which he replied on 8.3.2006 stating that due to disturbance in his family he had to go to his home. Show cause notice had also been issued to him on 22.2.2006 giving him the opportunity to give his explanation about the misconducts found against him, which he had replied on 21.3.2006, denying the allegations. The Memo of Charges was issued to the appellant on 30.8.2007, again giving him the opportunity to give reply to the various charges of misconduct found against him, but he did not give any reply to the same. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was made, which also was avoided by the appellant in spite of giving him sufficient opportunity. In the departmental enquiry, the appellant was found guilty of the following charges:- (a) In the year 2006, the fees and forms of 13 matriculation examines were not deposited in the Jharkhand Academic Council, though the fees and forms were realised from them. (b) Out of the amount realised from the examinees by the appellant, he had defalcated the amount of Rs. 11,838/- and had not deposited the same in the School fund. (c) During the period of suspension, he had unauthorizedly absented himself on 4.3.2006 and 5.3.2006. (d) On the occasion of the Independence Day of the year 2006, he was unauthorizedly absent from the School. (e) He failed to give any explanation to the show cause issued to him by the Secondary Education Directorate of the State Government. (f) And lastly, he had not attended the meeting, which was fixed by the Secretary of the School. The appellant was given the notice for hearing on the point of punishment on 28.11.2007 at 8.00 AM and he was also given an opportunity to either bring the stay order from the High Court, or to give his representation against the punishment, failing which, the proceeding was to be taken ex-parte against him. The appellant did not appear on the date fixed, nor any representation was filed, and accordingly, punishment order was passed against him by letter No. 1/08 dated 7.1.2007, imposing the fine of Rs. 15,000/- upon him to be paid within five days from receiving the order, failing which, his services were to be treated as terminated. The appellant did not avail even this opportunity, and in spite of the fact that in his Bank Account sufficient amount was available, he did not deposit the fine and accordingly, the services of the appellant stood terminated.;