Heard Sri Amitabh Kumar Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.R. Mishra for the BSA opposite party no. 4. Notices on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 have been accepted by learned Standing Counsel.
The petition has been filed against the suspension order dated 5.1.2009 passed by Sri Praveen Mani Tripathi, BSA, Barabanki. The petitioner has been placed under suspension on four grounds :
(i) Non-completion of the construction of the building after withdrawing the sanctioned money for the said purpose.
(ii) Embezzlement of the government money.
(iii) Non-carrying out the work entrusted to the petitioner.
(iv) Non-following of the orders / directions given by the higher authorities.
The petitioner has challenged this suspension order on the ground that he is an Assistant Teacher and he has been entrusted with the job of construction of the school building for which he has no expertise. He is not aware about the rates of construction, the designing of the building and the architecture etc. This is the domain of the engineering companies or the departments like Public Works Department, Nirman Nigam or any such company which is engaged in construction work. Moreover, the petitioner along with 39 other such teachers had earlier filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 3858(M/B) of 2009 wherein jointly all the teachers had prayed for the revision of the cost estimated for the construction of the building. The court had ordered for deciding the representation of the petitioners by the Secretary, Basic Education.
The pertinent question which comes out of this action of forty teachers is that they are worried about the construction of the building rather than the education which is required to be imparted by them to the students. It has been observed that the duties for which the teachers are generally not competent or trained are always entrusted to them perhaps because they are working in rural areas like the distribution of Polio Drops, verification of names in the elections and several other such duties for which they are neither trained nor competent. Further they have to leave the job of teaching for these odd jobs. Education suffers.. The petitioner has raised a question of general importance. He says that in the present case also he has prayed to the court that the inquiry may be conducted by an independent agency who is well versed with the job of construction, engineering skills and labour cost, designing, architecture, required geological surveys and reading of maps etc. In a developing democracy like India, education should be accorded due importance. Primary education requires special attention. Knowledge and education are the hallmark of any democratic system. If the citizens of a country are not even literate they shall be handicapped in choosing a Government which is well informed. In such circumstances, the entrustment of extra duties like the ones mentioned above can not be desirable. They curtail the time of the teachers. Naturally the loss will that be of the poor students. The right of education is thus severely hampered. The Court expects the Secretary, Basic Education to look into this aspect of primary education. This is necessary for the primary students in particular and the nation in general.
In the present case the petitioner apprehends that the opposite parties in order to justify their action will get an inquiry conducted by a group of teachers or Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris. In- fact the committee which has been constituted for inquiring into the allegation of the petitioner consists of two Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris along with a Junior Engineer of the department of Basic Education who is appointed on contractual basis. Naturally his judgment can not be independent because his contract is dependent on the sweet will of the opposite parties.
In this view of the matter the court is of the considered view that since it is a matter of suspension and it has been passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari who is the competent authority this court will not interfere in the suspension. However, it is directed that the enquiry will not be conducted by the aforesaid committee which has been appointed for enquiring into the matter. An independent agency like PWD or Nirman Nigam or any other agency which the opposite party may choose consisting of Civil Engineer, competent to deal with the matter may be entrusted to conduct the inquiry within a time frame of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him.
The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry.
In case despite his cooperation the inquiry is not concluded, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the court again.
With the above observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 RKM.