Rajasthan High Court: In a civil writ petition seeking the quashment of charge-sheet on allegation of employing a proxy teacher, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., dismissed the petition and allowed the disciplinary proceedings to continue with a directive for the disciplinary authority to consider the petitioner’s representation. The Court also issued directives to address proxy teaching, including forming committees and flying squads for regular school inspections, displaying teachers’ photographs, launching a complaint mechanism, and enforcing strict disciplinary actions against violators.
“Only a great teacher can mould a great student.”
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a teacher from Chhipabarod, District Baran, was suspended and transferred to Bikaner following allegations of employing a proxy teacher. An FIR was filed against her under multiple sections of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), accusing her of misconduct. The petitioner preferred the present petition seeking quashing of the charge-sheet or at least the quash the order of changing the headquarters of the petitioner so that the petitioner can participate in the departmental proceedings. The petitioner claimed that the allegations against her are politically motivated and that due process was not followed before her suspension.
The Court stated that the Teachers are considered paramount in shaping students’ lives, akin to the reverence for gods in Hindu mythology. They are deemed ‘Nation builders’ responsible for imparting quality education and developing future citizens. The Court asserted that quality education is essential, as mandated by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, through Article 21-A, ensuring the right to education for all.
The Court noted that a 2018 World Bank study highlighted the prevalence of this issue in some Indian states, indicating a systemic failure. While addressing the practice of employing proxy teachers, particularly in government schools, the Court stated that employing proxy teachers has detrimental impact and the same had undermined the quality of education. The Court stated that proxy teachers are often unqualified, and they replace genuinely employed teachers thereby harming students’ education.
The Court acknowledged the serious allegations and the necessity for a thorough disciplinary inquiry. On the issue whether the charge-sheet against the petitioner could be quashed before the disciplinary inquiry, the Court reaffirmed that charge-sheets should not be quashed before an inquiry unless issued by an incompetent authority, citing State of Orissa v. Sangram Keshari Misra, (2010) 13 SCC 311.
“Charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of the chargesheet, at the initial stage, must submit his reply before the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.”
The Court emphasised on the need to address the issue of proxy teachers urgently. The Court issued the following directives to address proxy teaching.
-
Issued general Mandamus to Government of Rajasthan and educational authorities to take immediate action to eliminate proxy teaching practices and ensure teacher attendance.
-
Directed immediate steps like forming committees to inspect schools, displaying teachers’ photographs, and launching a complaint portal for public reporting.
-
Strict action against absentee teachers and proxies, including FIRs, disciplinary proceedings, and salary recovery.
-
Establishing a complaint mechanism via a website and toll-free number.
-
Enforcement of a “Zero Tolerance Policy on Proxy Teachers.”
-
Mandated the authorities must submit quarterly compliance reports to the court.
-
Warned that willful disobedience of the Court’s orders would be considered contempt of court.
The Court dismissed the writ petition and urged the petitioner to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court listed the matter for further review on 07-10-2024.
[Manju Garg v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2248, Decided on 31-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Himanshu Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner;
Mr. G.K. Sharma, Addl. G.C., Counsel for the Respondents.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
