IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7795 of 2010 1. SMT. MAMTA KUMARI D/O SURENDRA NATH BRAHMCHARI R/O VILL.- BINODPUR, WARD NO. 14, P.S. - P.O. & DISTT. - KATIHAR, PRESENT ADDRESS- PRATHMIK VIDYALAY, BALUGANJ, VILL. AND POST- DANDKHORA BHAYA- SONAKI, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR MAHILA AYOG, NEAR PATNA HIGH COURT, 1, SOUTH BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 800001 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KATIHAR 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, KATIHAR 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICR, DANDKHORA, KATIHAR 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT BALUGANJ, DANDKHORA, DISTT.- KATIHAR 9. HEAD MASTER, PRATHAMIC VIDYALAY, BALUGANJ, KATIHAR 10. SMT. VIMLA DEVI W/O SRI DURGENDRA LAL RAMDAS R/O VILL.- DHARAMSALA ROAD, P.S.- KISHANGANJ, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ 11. ANIMA SINHA W/O DILIP RAM DAS R/O VILL.- DHARAMSALA ROAD, P.S.- KISHANGANJ, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ ----------- 2 25.10.2010 The petitioner is a Panchayat Teacher working in Primary School, Baluganj, Dandkhora, District – Katihar. She has come to this Court challenging her suspension as communicated to her by the Headmaster by letter dated 25th February, 2010. The Headmaster intimates that as per the recommendations received, she is being suspended. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in which it is stated that petitioner’s mother-in-law had moved the Bihar State Women’s Commission complaining against the conduct of the petitioner towards her (mother-in-law). The Women’s Commission issued notice to the petitioner for appearance and as petitioner refused to appear, the 2 Commission wrote to the District Magistrate, Katihar to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is pursuant to those directions that the petitioner has been suspended. On behalf of petitioner, a short legal issue has been raised. Petitioner is an employee of the Panchayat and is a Primary Panchayat Teacher. She cannot be suspended except for dereliction of duty in course of her employment. The Mahila Ayog has no jurisdiction to direct the District Magistrate to start disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. If any, the Commission can take action by itself if so authorized by law. Having heard the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Suspension, in course of employment, is a matter of discipline. The discipline is in course of employment and arises out of terms and conditions of employment. What the petitioner does with her mother-in- law or for that matter with the State Women’s Commission is not a matter of discipline as between the petitioner as Primary Panchayat Teacher and the Panchayat being her employer. That dispute, as between the petitioner and her mother-in-law, cannot be dragged in for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. There is no allegation of any dereliction of duty in course of her employment as against the petitioner and, thus, the authorities have no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. If the Commission is aggrieved by non-appearance of petitioner before the Commission, it is for the Commission to take action independently as it may be empowered in law but certainly that cannot become a matter of disciplinary proceedings in relation to petitioner’s employment as a 3 Panchayat Teacher. Thus, neither in fact nor in law, the order of suspension can be sustained. It is, accordingly, quashed. It is deemed that the petitioner has been in continuing service as the suspension is mala fide. The writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)