Can a teacher who abandoned duties for 7 years seek relief after termination? Orissa High Court answers

What was the case?

• The appellant was appointed as Sikhya Sahayak for Upper Primary School, Gobindapur.
• She remained absent from duty from June 20, 2013.
• On October 20, 2020, the Collector-cum-CEO of Gajapati Zilla Parishad issued a formal disengagement order citing long unauthorised absence and breach of contractual conditions.
• The single judge dismissed her petition challenging the disengagement, noting that she failed to produce any authorisation letter for her prolonged absence.
• The counsel appearing for the appellant sought the court’s indulgence.
• On the other hand, the additional government advocate appearing for the state argued that the disengagement order was valid on account of long unauthorised absence from service.

Court’s observations

• The appellant unauthorisedly abandoned her service as a teacher from June 20 2013, roughly for a long period of seven years.
• A formal disengagement order was issued on October 20, 2020.
• It is clear that she has made no attempt whatsoever in these seven years to resume her duty. She never bothered about the fate of school children, whom she had to teach.
• On the contrary, she was more bothered about her family.
• What difficulty the student community would be put to for want of a teacher leads one to a wild imagination. It is more so in this competitive age.
• Teachers are revered as builders of the nation. Such is the importance that any civilised society would attach to the teaching job, more particularly that which is meant for tender minds.
• Our scriptures say ‘gurubhyo namah’, literally meaning ‘salutations to the teacher’.

• The conduct of delinquent appellant militantly falls short of the obtaining standards and therefore she cannot be granted any relief in constitutional jurisdiction.
• Such a person cannot seek writ remedy provided under the Constitution of India.
• Abandonment has to be ascertained or construed on the basis of the delinquent’s conduct and other circumstances such as, the length of absence, undesirable consequences of absence, nature of the job, plausibility of explanation offered, length of service put in, etc.
• Since abandonment per se causes cessation of employment, the order of removal entered following such abandonment is formal in character.
• Such an order does not bring about cessation, but only places on record the factum of cessation of vinculum juris (bond of the law).
• The umbilical cord thus gets separated by the act of employee and the subsequent order at the hands of employer only recognises this. In other words, the order is not constitutive of abandonment but only serves as evidence of the same.
• This subtle difference has to be kept in mind by the stakeholders while operating with the cases of abandonment. Otherwise, the interest of public service may be prejudiced.