IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17581 of 2009 1. Ram Chchavi Mochi S/O Late Bigu Mochi R/O Vill Baodh Bigha,P.S. Mehandia, Distt-Arwal, Dismissed Teacher, Primary School, Ratti Bigha,Bodh Gaya, Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat,Patna-1 2. The Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate Gaya 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Gaya 5. The Regional Education Officer Cum Inquiry Officer Tekari, Gaya 6. The Regional Education Officer Sadar, Gaya ----------- 3 28.6.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Time was earlier allowed to the counsel appearing for the State for filing counter affidavit, showing reason for petitioner’s dismissal from service, even without affording any opportunity to show cause and initiating any departmental proceeding. Since no counter affidavit was filed; as such the matter is being decided without any counter affidavit of the State. Petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher in the year 1981. One Veer Bhadra Yashraj, a local BJP leader, filed a complain against the petitioner in the meeting of twenty point programme Committee held on 18.7.2009. Allegation against the petitioner was that without being an untrained teacher, he is receiving salary in the trained teacher’s 2 scale. The Regional Education Officer, Sadar, Gaya vide his letter No. 676, dated 28.7.2009 asked the petitioner to produced all his certificates/testimonials in support of his educational qualification within twenty four hours, of the receipt of this letter. Petitioner in response to the letter furnished all documents relating to his educational qualification. The Regional Educational Officer, Sadar, Gaya vide letter No. 684 dated 3.8.2009 submitted report before the District Superintendent Education, Gaya. However, DSE, Gaya appointed the Regional Education Officer, Tekari to conduct an enquiry and submit his report. The Regional Education Officer vide letter no. 340 dated 17.11.2009, issued notice to the petitioner to appear before him and submit his show cause on 24.11.2009. To the surprise of the petitioner, one day prior to the date on which he was supposed to appear before Regional Education Officer to defend his case, an order pertaining memo no. 5926 dated 23.11.2009 was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from his service. Facts relating to issuance of dismissal order, one day prior to the date fixed for petitioner’s 3 appearance has not been controverted, as no counter affidavit has been filed. Uncontroverted facts of this case indicates that no proper departmental enquiry was initiated for the alleged charge of receiving salary of trained teacher, being an untrained teacher. Simply one of the Officers of the Education Department, was appointed as an enquiry officer charges were not framed and served upon the petitioner. The inquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner for appearance and before the petitioner could have appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted his show cause, dismissal order was passed. The procedure adopted by the respondents for dismissing the petitioner from service, is unknown to the service law. Most serious punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded, even without initiating a departmental proceeding and without giving any opportunity to show cause. Such order cannot be allowed to remain effective, as it has been passed completely in violation of rule of natural justice. Accordingly the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 as contained in memo no. 5926 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya dismissing the petitioner from service, is quashed. 4 The writ application stands allowed. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)