IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12878 of 2008 ARUN PANDEY, S/O LATE SRINARAYAN PANDEY, R/O VILLAGE-ANDAULI, P.S.-ARIARI, DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA (OLD MUNGER). …………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DIRECTOR, PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. …………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 08.11.2011 I.A. No.7531 of 2011 This I.A. has been filed by the petitioner brining on record an order passed by the District Superintendent of Education dated 01.09.2008, annexed as Annexure-13, by which, during the pendency of this writ application, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Prayer has been made to allow amendment of the prayer and to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge this order of the District Superintendent of Education also. There is no opposition to the I.A. The I.A. is therefore allowed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the said order of the District Superintendent of Education. It appears that when the 2 petitioner’s salary was stopped for some period, he had moved this Court. His writ application was disposed of by order dated 07.09.2006 passed in CWJC No.3464 of 2006, vide Annexure-5. This Court found that salary of the petitioner was stopped on account of inquiry being held with regard to legality or validity of his appointment. Hence, while disposing of the writ application, this Court directed that the inquiry should be completed expeditiously and final decision should be taken in the matter. The inquiry having not been completed petitioner has moved this Court through the present writ application. During the pendency of this writ application, the services of the petitioner have been terminated vide order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Munger, as contained in Annexure-13, which is now impugned in this writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while terminating the services of the petitioner no full-fledged inquiry was held in terms of Rule 21 of Bihar State Elementary School Rules 2002. He further submits that the District Superintendent of Education is not the disciplinary authority 3 of the petitioner. Hence, the order of termination passed by him is without jurisdiction. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. Their stand is that before the services of the petitioner was terminated an inquiry was made from the concerned Training College and the Bihar School Examination Board and it transpired that petitioner had not appeared in the training examination and his certificate of training was forged. Thereafter, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, in reply to which petitioner did not produce any substantial material to controvert the reports of the Training College and the Bihar School Examination Board. Hence, his services have been terminated. Rule 21 of the said 2002 Rules applies in cases where an incumbent has entered into service validly and subsequently he has been found to have committed some misconduct for which a procedure for a proceeding and punishment is prescribed. On an inquiry, petitioner’s initial appointment itself was found to be illegal as having obtained on the basis of forged certificate. 4 If that finding is correct, the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was void. Hence no right can be held to have accrued to the petitioner on the basis of such illegal appointment so as to get protection of said Rule 21 of the 2002 Rules. It may be noticed that learned counsel for the petitioner made no submission, at all, claiming that the training certificate produced by him at the time of appointment was a genuine document. However, there is some substance in the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Deputy Development Commissioner who is the competent authority under the Rules to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and terminate his services, if necessary. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the District Superintendent of Education dated 01.09.2008 is quashed and the District Education Officer, who has now been entrusted with the power of the office of erstwhile District Superintendent of Education, is directed to transmit all the records to the concerned Deputy Development Commissioner within one month from the date 5 of receipt/production of a copy of this order. On receipt of the records, the Deputy Development Commissioner shall issue notice to the petitioner enclosing reports of the Teachers Training College and the Bihar School Examination Board, giving him opportunity to file his reply and appear before him, if he desires. Thereafter, the Deputy Development Commissioner shall pass final orders in the matter within two months from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the District Education Officer. During this period petitioner shall not be entitled to resume his duties and shall not be entitled for payment of any salary which shall depend on the final orders of the Deputy Development Commissioner. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)