Petitioner challenged force leave notice due to social media expressions. Court declined interference, directing petitioner to file reply to show cause within specified timeline for respondents to decide on merits.
Petitioner directed to file reply to show cause within four weeks; respondents to consider reply and take appropriate decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1277 of 2022
----
Rajni Kumari C/o Jivan Murmu, Patharchapti Zahar Tola, Madhupur, PO PS Madhupur, Distt Deoghar.
… Petitioner
-versus-
… Respondents
----
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, AC to SC (L&C) Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Singh, Advocate
7/ 23.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, prays for an appropriate order to quash the notice dated 01.02.2022 issued by the respondent No.3, wherein petitioner has been kept under forced leave with immediate effect, i.e., with effect from 01.02.2022.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor on contractual basis. Just because petitioner has expressed opinion on social media, she has been kept under forced leave, pending enquiry. It is his contention that expression of any opinion on social media cannot be a ground to keep the petitioner under forced leave and nor the respondents can punish the petitioner without a proper enquiry.
4. Counsel appearing for the Sido Kanho Murmu University submits that after issuance of Annexure 3, i.e., notice dated 01.02.2022, show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner to inquire into the allegation, but the petitioner did not reply to the said show cause, rather, through a lawyer’s notice, had challenged the entire process. He submits that once the petitioner files a detail reply to the show cause, it will be decided whether to proceed any further or not. Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel submits that no
-: 2 :-
sooner the petitioner files a reply to the show cause, an appropriate decision will be taken at the earliest.
5. Considering the submission of the parties, since a notice has been served to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned notice at this stage. I direct the petitioner to file a proper reply to the show cause and take all the grounds, which she can take in her defence. Respondents will consider the reply of the petitioner on its own merit and will pass an appropriate order. It is expected that the petitioner will file reply to the show cause within four weeks and thereafter within a further period of four weeks, respondents will take an appropriate decision. It is made clear that if the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, proper opportunity should be given to the petitioner.
6. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
7. Interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 6811 of 2022 is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in the main writ petition.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/S.K/Cp-02
3 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere with force leave notice issued against petitioner for social media expressions before examination of her reply.
Whether petitioner was given a proper opportunity to defend against allegations in show cause notice.
Whether High Court should grant final orders or direct respondents to consider petitioner's reply on merits.
Rajni Kumari
State of Jharkhand
Sido Kanhu Murmu University
Registrar, Sido Kanhu Murmu University
Principal Godda College
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
