IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 9596 of 2006 Sushila Devi, wife of late Nageshwar Mandal, resident of village – Narauhiya, P S – Basnahi, District – Saharsa - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 The District Education Establishment Committee through its Chairman, Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul, District – Supaul 5 The District Superintendent of Education, Supaul 6 The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa 7 The Area Education Officer, Raghopur, District – Supaul 8 The Block Education Extension Officer, Raghopur (North), District - Supaul - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Bhaskar Shankar, AC to GP 16 *** 5 19.05.2011 Petitioner, by this writ application, has sought the quashing of the order, as contained in Annexure-13 being the order communicated by the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul dated 07.07.2006 by which petitioner has been dismissed from service. Counter affidavit, rejoinder and supplementary affidavits have been filed. With consent of parties, this writ petition has been heard at this stage for final disposal. Let it be noted that during pendency, the writ petitioner has died and has been substituted by his widow. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.08.1964. He was posted in Girls Primary School, Hariraha in the Supaul Subdivision of District – Saharsa (now Supaul district itself). On 23.05.1992, in the morning, it appears that the School was inspected by the District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa who found the - 2 - School closed. Petitioner alleges that he got delayed because of a puncture in his cycle and on the same day, he alleges that he met the District Superintendent of Education and explained the situation. The School, thereafter, was closed for Summer Vacation. Petitioner admits that upon the School reopening, he received Memo of Charge in which the Block Education Extension Officer, Salkhua was made the Enquiry Officer. He alleges that he had never received the suspension order but at the same time, he states that as a consequence of suspension, he tried to submit his joining in the Headquarters marked for him as the Office of the Area Education Officer, Raghopur on 13.06.1992 but the same was not accepted. Thereafter, in the year 2006, petitioner received the letter directing him to produce all relevant documents to show about his suspension, his joining and attendance after suspension. Let it be noted that the period was over 14 years. Again, there was silence. On 26.06.2006, a press communiqué was issued showing petitioner absconding for 14 years after his suspension and directing him to produce all papers in that regard and his defence. Petitioner submits that thereafter he approached the Office of the District Superintendent of Education, Supaul but by the impugned order dated 08.07.2006, he has been dismissed holding that on inspection, the School was found closed without prior permission or intimation. Petitioner, having been suspended, never reported to the Headquarters and for 14 years has been absconding without any explanation. In spite of opportunity given, no papers were produced nor any evidence was adduced and, accordingly, after consulting the District Establishment Committee, the petitioner was being dismissed. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the order on two counts. Firstly, the order, he submits, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and secondly, no proper departmental enquiry was at all conducted and, as such, the dismissal order cannot be sustainable. Leaving the issue as to what petitioner did for 14 long years when he remained suspended of which he had the knowledge as he himself says that consequent to suspension, he had immediately gone to give his joining in the Office of the Area Education Officer but was not permitted to do so, all I can say is even at the end of the period, authorities issued newspaper communiqué giving him time to appear and defend himself. He failed to respond though he admits having knowledge of the communiqué. In my view, principles of natural justice are neither an unrulty horse nor a bull in the China shop but are there to safeguard interest of persons. The conduct of the petitioner itself establishes that he remained absent without authorization for 14 years. He did nothing against non-payment of subsistence allowance, non-permitting of marking his attendance, made no representation to higher authorities to reinstatement, took no efforts in the matter and, thereafter, even though he had knowledge through the press communiqué, he took no effective steps to defend him. On these facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and exercise my discretion therein. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)