IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11764 of 2006 Poonam Prabha, wife of Yashwant Kumar, resident of Mohalla – Kolhua Paighamberpur, P S – Yahiyapur, District – Muzaffarpur - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 3 The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi 4 The Area Education Officer, Runi Saidpur, District - Sitamarhi - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Ashwini Kumar Singh, Sr Advocate With Mr Anil Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Anwar Karim, AC to SC 16 *** 4 10.05.2011 The petitioner, upon death of her father, was duly appointed on compassionate ground as an Assistant Teacher. In 2002, allegedly there was a complaint from her widow mother that she was not being maintained. In 2003, petitioner is said to have married a person having a living spouse. The said spouse filed a criminal case in which petitioner as well as that man went to jail. Petitioner was suspended. After release from jail, she continued in suspension and her headquarters was fixed as the office of District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. It appears, thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned order of dismissal from service, as contained in Annexure-7, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi under Memo No 1554 dated 21.04.2005. It appears petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging her suspension. This order of dismissal was passed during pendency of the said writ petition and, as such, was brought on record in those 2 proceedings. Accordingly, that writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to seek her remedies against the dismissal order. Against the dismissal order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur which appeal was dismissed by order dated 09.08.2006 and, hence, the writ petition. After long delay, a counter affidavit has now been filed. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the conduct of the petitioner was in conflict with Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. It is also stated that matter of neglect of petitioner’s mother by petitioner was enquired at different levels in different districts and upon consideration of all the facts, the District Establishment Committee, Sitamarhi, headed by the Collector, Sitamarhi, came to a decision that petitioner should be dismissed and, accordingly, the District Superintendent of Education issued the dismissal order. In the counter affidavit, it is not stated that any departmental proceedings were initiated or any show cause in this regard was at all issued to the petitioner. On the other hand, counter affidavit virtually admits that various in-house enquiries were made and the dismissal order issued. We are living in the 21st century and the authorities at the district level seem to be living in pre-historic times. The elementary principles of natural justice have been totally forgotten. No show cause, not even in the vaguest term with regard to proposed action, was at all issued. Straightway, dismissal order issued. What I find more surprising is statutory appeal, preferred to the Commissioner of the Division, who is a very senior officer, meets with the same treatment. Extensively, he had relied upon materials which were 3 never even disclosed to the petitioner. Various enquiry reports, inter- departmental proceedings are referred to but the simple question whether any proceeding at all was initiated is ignored to be answered. Learned counsel for the State submits that on the face of the records, by conducting second marriage, petitioner has violated Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976. Petitioner had neglected to maintain her mother. Accordingly, the order was rightly passed and was in interest of justice. Justice by whose standards and justice for whom is the question? Admittedly, it is not justice by any known standards of this country. Justice for whom? At least it is not for the petitioner or for her mother because by this unmindful act of the authorities of dismissing the petitioner, they have deprived petitioner’s mother of any chance of being looked after. Before taking such action, responsible authority should act more responsibly. What have they achieved? Nothing. And the only thing if at all they have made sure that mother of the petitioner, if she is still alive, would surely die very soon. Coming to the question of bigamous marriage, I need not say much because this Court, in the case of Mrs Madhurima Singh – Versus- State of Bihar and Others since reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 643, has clearly held that Rule 23 of Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules does not prohibit bigamous marriage rather Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 23, in clear terms, permits bigamous marriage even if personal law does not so permit. Be that as it may, as there were no departmental proceedings at all initiated, the order of dismissal and its sustenance in 4 appeal cannot be sustained. They are, accordingly, quashed. It would be deemed that the petitioner would be in continuous service accordingly with all consequential benefits. The writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)