IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.15260 OF 2009. SMT.RADHA KUMARI, W/O SUBHASH CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE PANSALLA , P.S SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, SULTANGANJ,DISTRIT BHAGALPUR. 3.AREA/REGIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. 4.DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHAGALPUR. ………………………RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- 03/ 14.12.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief:- “That the present writ petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court on behalf of the aforesaid petitioner in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been suspended on the basis of letter no. 1511 dated 17.5.2007 and has been placed under the departmental proceeding contained in Annexure-9 and 10 and the office order dated 13.03.2009 passed by District Education Officer, Sultanganj respondent no. 3 whereby in reference to the aforesaid office order dated 17.03.09, the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved from the post of Headmaster of Middle School Pansalla, Anchal Sultanganj handing over the charge to a senior Assistant Teacher of the said Assistant Teacher of the said school.” this Court is of the firm opinion 2 that the respondents should not have delayed the disposal of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, who was for this very purpose placed under suspension on 17.05.2007. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner is continuing under suspension and it is said that she is going to superannuate in this very month i.e. December-2011. Mr. Ajay, counsel appearing on behalf of State having obtained instruction from District Programme Officer, Establishment, Bhagalpur has submitted that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner could not be completed on account of abolition of the post of Inquiry Officer. He has, however, submitted that the departmental Authorities are prepared to conclude the departmental proceeding at the earliest and in fact the whole inquiry against the petitioner can be brought to an end by passing the final order within a period of 15 days. In the considered opinion of this Court since the charges which have been framed against the petitioner involves the 3 allegation of financial misappropriation of Government fund, to the tune of Rs. 5.5 lacs approximately inasmuch as the petitioner and her husband are said to be responsible in constructing a part of the building of the School in question much below the prescribed standard, where the petitioner was working as Incharge Headmaster, such inquiry, therefore, can still be continued, even if, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation. For conducting such inquiry in terms of Rule 43-B of Bihar Pension Rules, no separate proceeding has to be initiated as was laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2000(1)PLJR 665. This court therefore would also not like to expedite the inquiry to the extent that it may become force and therefore if for one reason or another the departmental enquiry could not be completed as yet in a period of 4 years, this Court cannot become a party in unnecessarily hurrying and hushing the inquiry by directing it to be completed within a period of 15 days. The 4 charges against the petitioner is based on the report of an Executive Engineer that the construction of the building was not made as per the specific specifications. Such report of the Executive Engineer cannot be treated to be a gospel truth unless the Executive Engineer himself appears in course of departmental proceeding for supporting his report before the inquiry officer. The petitioner has to be also given an opportunity of crossexamining the said Executive Engineer. All these aspects cannot be done within a period of 15 days as was suggested by Mr. Ajay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on instruction given by the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Bhagalpur. Considering all these aspects, this Court would grant four months time to conclude the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and further two months time to the District Education Establishment Committee to pass a final order in terms of the findings recorded in the inquiry report. The whole exercise 5 against the petitioner however must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Since, the petitioner is not continuing in service and is in receipt of subsistence allowance, which may also be snapped on account of her retirement going to take place on 31.12.2011, this Court would direct the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Bhagalpur to ensure that only 90 per cent of provisional pension is paid to the petitioner immediately after attaining her retirement, so that she is not prejudiced/handicapped in appearing before the inquiry officer and participating in the departmental inquiry. Nothing, however, said in this order would come in the way of the authorities including the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte, if the, petitioner does not co-operate in the departmental inquiry. The Authorities therefore must bring the departmental proceeding against the petitioner to its logical conclusion by passing a final order strictly in 6 accordance with law within the aforementioned period of six months. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)