Judgment:
Navin Sinha, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School in the Sheikhpura Block known as Uchya Prathmic Vidyalaya, Kare on 23.2.1972 on the post of Trained Teacher. He continued to impart education to the students of the School and was being paid his salary till the same was suddenly stopped in the year 1999. The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 1228 of 2003 aggrieved by the order of stoppage of his salary when a defence was taken on behalf of the Sate that his appointment was suspected to be fake. A Bench of this Court relying on a Division Bench of this Court held that salary could not be denied unless and until an employee is placed under suspension or fails to respond to notice in a finding of illegality in appointment. It was further noticed that by order of stoppage of salary the persons concerned had been directed to submit their mark sheet, certificate etc. for the purpose of verification. It was, therefore, directed that till end of enquiry salary could not be stopped except where suspension takes place with a liberty that salary be paid subject to the result of the enquiry. The salary or enquiry still remained elusive when the petitioner preferred MJC No. 1228 of 2003 before this Court for noncompliance. It was only after the contempt application was filed that the respondents passed the impugned order dated 14.9.2004 holding that the certificates of the petitioner on the basis of which appointment came to be made was fake and fabricated. As a corollary to the same has followed the second impugned order dated 20.9.2004 that the petitioner was not entitled to arrears of salary or his retiral benefits.
2. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.6.2004. It is an admitted position, not disputed by the Counsel for the State, that the petitioner continued to discharge duties as Assistant Teacher in the Government School till date of his superannuation notwithstanding the facts noticed above.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission that the determination of his certificate and testimonials being fake in an alleged enquiry has been held behind his back and he has been condemned un-heard. That the order has been passed after his superannuation.
4. The only stand of the State from their counter affidavit and the submissions made during proceedings was that in the enquiry by order dated 14.9.2004 it has been determined that the certificates and testimonials of the petitioner were fake. He was, therefore, not entitled to any salary or retrial benefits, the appointment itself being illegal. That a First Information Report had been lodged against the petitioner.
5. To this Court, the facts of the case are very glaring and reflect the complete apathy of the State to an issue as important as education. A teacher stands as a role model for students. He imparts character, integrity and morality to the students. A teacher necessarily has to prepare to teach the next day. He is also required to maintain his own family and run his kitchen. If a teacher has a Democles' Sword hanging over his head, where his employment itself is at stake and he has to keep running to his lawyer and to the Court room to save his job balancing his budget to keep the kitchen fire burning one can well understand what time he will devote to prepare for teaching the next day. The inevitable result is that quality of education imparted by him suffers. The ultimate sufferer is the student.
6. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 23.2.1972. There is a presumption in law that when he was appointed after his eligibility, qualifications, certificates and testimonials were verified. That is further emboldened in the present case from the facts that from 1972 till 1999 none found any illegality in his appointment or quality of education imparted by him. Twenty-seven years after his appointment suddenly an issue of the illegality of the appointment is sought to be raked up. He is then made to run to the lawyer and to the Court room and balance his budget for running his house. The casualty is to the education being imparted by him. This Court in 2003 granted liberty for an enquiry. The respondents still chose to sit over the matter. The pronouncement of the illegality of the appointment has been made after superannuation of the petitioner. For what purpose and with what achievement? Even this determination is contrary to elementary principles of law which is so well established by now and needs no reiteration that no man shall be condemned un-heard. The respondents chose to do exactly opposite to condemn the petitioner without hearing him. The so called enquiry which resulted into the order dated 14.9.2004, it was never considered necessary to associate the petitioner with the same when decisions were taken on photo copies of the documents.
7. If the petitioner was an illegally appointee as is sought to be contended quite obviously it was a collusive appointment. If, it was a collusive appointment, why should the petitioner suffer alone? Those who made hay while the sun shone must equally see cloudy days. If the petitioner has to be denied his arrears of salary and retrial benefits all those in the Government who were associated with the appointment of the petitioner and released all salary to him as Assistant Teacher from 1972 to 1999 are equally required to be proceeded with against departmentally or under the criminal laws of the land, as the case may be. The counter affidavit of the respondents is completely silent on this issue, perhaps intentionally.
8. This Court is perturbed by the manner in which the issue as important as education has been dealt with by the State.
If what the respondents have done be permitted, no government employee would be safe, as at any stage of his career, no matter of the passage of time, any government functionary takes it into his mind to reopen the issue settled 27 years back the same may be reopened to be closed on conditions and negotiations only.
9. The impugned orders dated 14.9.2004 and 20.9.2004 are quashed. The Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to his entire arrears of salary withheld from 1999 till his retirement on 30.6.2004 as also his retirement benefits. The only justification for the same would be institution of simultaneous departmental or criminal proceedings against those who dealt with his appointment and continuance from 1972 to 1999 as noticed above.
10. This shall be without prejudice to the criminal prosecution stated to have been lodged against the petitioner.
The writ application stands allowed.