IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.13743 of 2008 Alongwith CWP(T) No.14631 of 2008. Judgment reserved on:28.4.2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 CWP(T) No.13743 of 2008: Vachan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents CWP(T) No.14631 of 2008: Babita Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for R-1&2. Mr.P.P. Chauhan, counsel for R-3. Deepak Gupta, J : 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since similar questions of fact and law are involved in the same. 2. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders whereby alleged penalty of “dies-non” Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 has been imposed upon them. Both the petitioners are lecturers in Government Senior Secondary School, Pahal, District Shimla. The Deputy Director (Education) conducted a surprise visit in the School on 18th November, 2004 and found that as many as seven teachers including the two petitioners were absent. On perusal of the attendance register it was found that the Principal of the School had mentioned that the staff members were on leave. However, no proper leave applications were shown to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director thereafter issued a letter dated 18th November, 2004 to the Principal of the School stating that before any action is taken against the erring staff explanation of the staff members alongwith the comments may be sent to the office of the Deputy Director. The explanation of the Principal was also called for and he was asked to explain how 13 out of total 20 staff 3 members of the school were granted leave at the same time. 3. In reply to this notice the Principal replied that normally no teacher leaves the Institution without proper leave and permission. He further stated that the teachers including the petitioners had realized their fault and had undertaken not to repeat such mistake in future. He, therefore, recommended that no action be taken against the teachers. Thereafter, fresh notice was issued to the Principal directing him to comply with the earlier directions. 4. The Petitioner Vachan Singh sent a reply to the Deputy Director that his grand father had suddenly expired on 18th November itself and it was not possible for him to submit an application for grant of leave. He therefore conveyed a message to the Principal through his colleague and on the basis of this message the Principal marked 4 him to be on earned leave in the attendance register. 5. The explanation give by Vachan Singh petitioner in CWP(T) No.13743 of 2008 is that he could not attend the school because of the sudden death of his grand father. This representation was considered and a period of unauthorized absence i.e. 18.11.2004 was directed to be treated as “dies non” for all purpose i.e. increment, leave and pension etc. 6. As far as Smt.Babita Thakur, petitioner in CWP(T) No.14631 of 2008 is concerned, her explanation was that her maid servant did not come to her residence and therefore there was none to look after her two year old child and as such she could not attend her duties but had sent an intimation in time. Her explanation was also not accepted and similar punishment was imposed upon her. 7. At the outset, I would like to mention that there is an unhealthy practice in various schools especially in the rural areas where 5 teachers do not go to take classes. Nobody worries about these students and their fundamental right of education. It was only because a surprise inspection was carried out that it was found that as many as seven teachers were absent from duty and out of the total staff strength of 20, 13 members of the staff were absent. According to the Principal, he had granted leave to them but as found by the Deputy Director there were no proper applications for grant of leave. This Court has no sympathy for those teachers who do not care for the future of the small children studying in the schools but are only looking after their own comforts or are worried about their own children. 8. However, as far as Vachan Singh is concerned, his explanation is proper. It is not disputed that his grand father died on that very day itself. The funeral was held on that date and as such his absence was justified and therefore the impugned order in so far as he is concerned is set-aside and he 6 shall be granted casual leave or any other leave of the kind due for that date. 9. As far as Babita Thakur is concerned her explanation is not at all acceptable. There is nothing on record to show that she had sent a written intimation. Even otherwise, no teacher can avoid duty only on the ground that her maid servant had not come to the house. Therefore, her petition is rejected. 10. In view of the above discussion, CWP(T) No.13743 of 2008 filed by Vachan Singh is allowed and the order Annexure A-5 is quashed only in respect of Vachan Singh and CWP (T) No.14631 of 2008 filed by Smt.Babita Thakur, is dismissed. No costs. May 3, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge