IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5583 of 2009 Prabir Kumar Biswas, son of Shree Amrendra Nath Biswas, Teacher-in-Charge, Primary School, Milkipur, Police Station – Bihta, District – Patna, Headquarter – Office of the Block Education Extension Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna (while under suspension) ………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director (Primary Education),Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 4. The District Education Establishment Committee, Patna through its Secretary (The District Superintendent of Education). 5. The District Magistrate, Patna 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna 8. The Area Education Officer, Bankipur, Patna 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna ………………….. Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ajay, Advocate (SC-X) ********** 07. 13.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing of Order, contained in Memo No. 880 Patna, dated 01.02.2008, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, vide which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service in the departmental proceeding, initiated against the 2 petitioner. Further prayer is for quashing of the Appellate Order, contained in Memo No. 684 Patna, dated 13.04.2009, confirming the punishment awarded by the impugned order. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. The facts, as disclosed in the Writ Application, are that the petitioner was the senior most teacher in Primary School, Milkipur, Anchal-Bihta, District-Patna. Some disputes arose in between the petitioner and the guardian of one of the students in the matters of providing benefit of scholarship to the students. Petitioner’s case is that he was enhanced threat by the guardian of the students. Facing fear of danger to his life, petitioner made a request to the District Superintendent of Education, Patna for his deputation to another School or for his transfer from the School in question to any other School. Petitioner sent his application through registered post and proceeded for five days’ leave. But, thereafter, he did not join at his School and continued to make representation for his transfer from that School. Petitioner has also filed representation directly before the District Magistrate, Patna, instead of representing 3 through proper channel, as required under the Rules. On account of unauthorized absence, petitioner even ignored to discharge his election duty that became a serious cause of action, resulting into initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Petitioner was put under suspension. Charges were framed and served upon the petitioner, appointing the Block Education Extension Officer, as Conducting Officer. Petitioner was asked to submit his show- cause. Show-cause was submitted by the petitioner, but thereafter he never participated in the departmental proceeding. Petitioner’s case is that he was never intimated about any date, on which the departmental proceeding had to be conducted, so that he would have participated in the departmental proceeding. An ex-parte enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. On perusal of the enquiry report, it transpires that out of four charges, two charges were found to be proof. So far the charge relating to failure in discharging election duty and non-joining in the School, despite several intimations, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is that it needs further verification with regard to intimation to the petitioner. 4 The recommendation of the Enquiry Officer was that suspension order be revoked and the petitioner be reinstated to discharge his duties, so that students’ education may not suffer. There was no recommendation for awarding serious punishment, like dismissal from service for which second show- cause-notice was issued to the petitioner with the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Petitioner’s case is that initially he challenged issuance of the second show-cause-notice by filing a Writ Application, which was dismissed with an observation that the petitioner should submit his second show-cause before the disciplinary authority. In compliance of the direction of the Writ Court, he went to submit his second show-cause-notice, but that was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. However, in support of this contention, no documents have been brought on record by the petitioner. In the Counter Affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, there is denial to this fact. Whatever be the matter, one thing is very much obvious that the punishment of dismissal, awarded against the petitioner is the outcome of an ex-parte departmental proceeding. On perusal of the 5 records, connected with the departmental proceeding, I could not find that on any date, notice was issued to the petitioner by the Conducting Officer for participating in the departmental proceeding on a date fixed for it. Simply, on the basis of show-cause, submitted by the petitioner and the charges framed against him, without looking into any document, without examining any witness, the enquiry report was submitted. Though, the enquiry report was in favour of the petitioner, there is no obvious reason why the disciplinary authority was of the view that severest punishment of dismissal from service should be awarded against the petitioner. Petitioner failed to submit his second show-cause and it seems that the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to the petitioner with vengeance by the disciplinary authority. “The employment is a very precious right of any individual, on which, depends his own career as well as life, and comfort, of his family members. Such precious right can not be taken away in the manner as has been done in the case of the petitioner.” Even if, petitioner failed to submit his show- cause, the disciplinary authority should have passed 6 an order on proper consideration of entire circumstance, evidence on record before the disciplinary authority. There was nothing before the disciplinary authority, except the charge framed, Conducting Officer’s enquiry report and the show- cause of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, it was essential to give an opportunity to the petitioner for participating in the departmental proceeding, but that was not done by the disciplinary authority. In case of awarding punishment, facts and circumstances of the case should have been considered by the disciplinary authority. Appellate Authority has just completed formality by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the impugned orders, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna, awarding punishment of dismissal (Annexure-1) and the Appellate Order, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna (Annexure-2) are fit to be quashed. Accordingly, these orders are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Conducting Officer for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and for submitting fresh enquiry report, on the basis 7 of that enquiry report, second show-cause-notice will be issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner / or any final order will be passed in the departmental proceeding, considering the recommendation in the enquiry report. The Conducting Officer will issue notice to the petitioner for participating in the departmental proceeding within one month from the date of production / communication of the order. Entire departmental proceeding thereafter will be conducted and completed within three months from the date of production / communication of this Order. Petitioner will participate in the proceeding and cooperate. In case of his non-cooperation the proceeding will be conducted and completed within three months ex- parte. The departmental proceeding will be conducted under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. With the aforesaid observation, this Writ Application is disposed of. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)