CWP No.5943/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.5943/2007 Date of Decision: 28.2.2008 Smt.Nirmala Kumari ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh.RK Malik,Senior Advocate with Sh.Nigam Kumar,Advocate for the petitioner. Sh.Harish Rathee, Sr.D.A.G.Haryana for respondents. . ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) In the year 2003, petitioner was working as Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Badhauli, District Ambala. In the subject of English, the annual result of class +2 of the said school was 0%. By taking note of the same, the petitioner was put under suspension on 30.6.2005 (P-1). Authorities decided to take action against her under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1987. Show cause notice was issued to her on 29.12.2006, by stating the following charge:- “ The 10+2 result of English Subject for the year 2004-05 of Smt.Nirmala Kumari, Principal, GSSS, Badhauli (Ambala) was Zero percent while the result of the Haryana School Education Board is 49.76%, therefore, being the Head of the School she was not having control over the subordinate staff working under her and failed (to) take interest in studies and demonstrate her CWP No.5943/2007 2 ability.” She filed reply to the show cause notice wherein she had stated that she was regularly writing to the concerned authorities that there was no Lecturer available, to teach the subject of English. Request was made to appoint some Lecturer so that students' interest may not suffer. Nothing was done. By taking note of the abovesaid fact, the punishing authority awarded her punishment of 'censure' only. However, it was said that salary for the suspension period be restricted to the subsistence allowance already received by the petitioner. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:- “I have carefully gone through the reply dated 16.1.2007 of Smt.Nirmala Kumari, Principal. The Principal at this stage taking plea that post of teachers were vacant in her school, which adversely affected the studies, is not a fully justifiable reason. As a Principal of the school, if there was a vacancy, which was affecting the studies that seriously, it was then her duty to have taken up the matter strongly with the Director and to have ensure that some teacher was posted. If, as a Principal of the school, she is enable (sic. unable) to take such action, it clearly indicates her lack of suitability for the post of Principal and her gross inefficiency, which led to the adverse results, of all the students failing in the Board Examinations. Hence, the charge stands proved. Accordingly, punishment of 'Censure' be and is hereby imposed. Since the charge has been proved, the salary for the suspension period be restricted to the subsistence allowance already received by her.” CWP No.5943/2007 3 Counsel for the parties heard. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been writing regularly to the higher authorities to appoint a Lecturer to teach the subject of English. To prove that fact, reference has been made to Annexures P-6 to P-12. In all these documents, it is clearly mentioned by the petitioner that the post of Lecturer in English is lying vacant since 13.8.2004. It is also not disputed before us that so far as other subjects are concerned, result of this school was more than the average result of Haryana School Education Board. If on account of non-availability of a Lecturer in subject of English, the students faired badly in that subject, the fault cannot be attributed to the petitioner, rather the authority(ies) who failed to appoint Lecturer in the subject of English, despite intimation sent by the petitioner, were to be blamed. Taking note of the above said fact, we feel that the non-payment of amount of salary for the suspension period, was not justified. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and direct the authorities concerned to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as period on duty and pay requisite consequential benefits to her forthwith. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 28.2.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge