IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.148 of 2002 1. MD.SAMI AHMAD, S/O AHMAD HUSSAIN, R/O VILLAGE-HARIHARPUR, POST-HAZIPURVA KARVA, P.S.-KALYANPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SINGHIA KHURD, SAMASTIPUR. 2. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAM NARAYAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-AKBARPUR, POST- BASUDEOPUR, P.S.-KALYANPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR, AT PRESENT WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, SATINALPUR, VARIS NAGAR, SAMASTIPUR. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SAMASTIPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv., Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv. and Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Adv. ----------- 5 05.04.2010 Annexure-6 is an order by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga on appeal of the petitioner preferred against order of his punishment. The order itself shows that the Commissioner found that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner in the proceeding. In the circumstances, while suspending the punishment order passed by the District Education Establishment Committee, he remitted back the matter to the Committee for 2 reconsideration. The Committee was directed to give personal hearing to the delinquents and pass fresh orders in respect of their punishment within one month. It was observed that upon fresh orders the earlier orders shall stand cancelled. Counter affidavit has been filed in this case sworn by the District Superintendent of Education, Samastipur. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that, pursuant to the said order of the Commissioner, petitioner filed an application before the Committee explaining the charges and requested for withdrawal of the punishment. On submission of said application the concerning authority appointed one Executive Magistrate, Samastipur as enquiry officer for further inquiry and proper adjudication. Thereafter, in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit the following statement has been made by the deponent of the counter affidavit: “That, it is relevant to mention here that the respondent to information to the petitioners, for appear before the inquiry officer on 10.8.1999, at about 11:00 a.m. for hearing their to the petitioners appeared before the inquiry officer on 3 10.8.1999, 13.8.1999 and 16.8.1999, but nothing was asked from them.” Thus, upon own showing of the respondents the petitioners appeared before the new enquiry officer on three days, but „nothing was asked from them.‟ Hence, admitted position is that the newly appointed enquiry officer also breached the Principles of Natural Justice by not asking the petitioners to participate in the enquiry and explain their conduct. Enquiry report submitted either by the earlier enquiry officer or newly enquiry officer has not been brought on record to show that as to what was considered by them to hold the petitioners guilty of the charges. In view of this admitted position, the punishment orders, as contained in Annexures-1 and 1/A, stand vitiated. The same are accordingly quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)