IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.772 of 2008 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur ……..Respondent-Appellants Versus 1. Smt.Urmila Charan Pandey, Daughter of Sri Satya Narain Pandey, Resident of Village – Parshurampur, Police Station – Furkolia, District – East Champaran ………. Petitioner/ Respondent ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C. XV For the Respondent: None. --------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 30th September, 2008. The appeal suffers from delay of 179 days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A. No. 6093 of 2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, we find that the appeal is devoid of any substance and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. It is pertinent to notice that the respondent (original petitioner) earlier approached this court as she was not allowed to join her duties pursuant to the appointment letter dated 15th October, 1990. This court disposed of the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 302 of 1999) on 10th March, 2000 by directing the respondents therein (the present appellants) to accept the joining of the respondent no. 1. The court also - 2 - gave liberty to the respondents therein (present appellants) to inquire into the legality and propriety of the appointment of the petitioner vide office order dated 15th October, 1990. Enquiry is said to have been held and the original petitioner’s service came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the original petitioner (present respondent) filed writ petition. The said writ petition has been allowed by the Single Judge vide his order dated 14th February, 2008 by holding thus: “It is not in controversy from the enquiry report that an advertisement was in fact issued. The petitioner contends that she was issued an interview letter. The enquiry report states that the Presenting Officer informed the Enquiry Officer after examination of records that no interview call was issued to the petitioner. This finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on hearsay. Despite availability of documentary evidence with the authorities, they have deliberately withheld the same from the Enquiry Officer. This Court therefore draws an adverse inference. The finding of the Enquiry Officer therefore that no interview call was issued to the petitioner is perverse. In so far as the question of her name not figuring in the panel of persons selected is concerned, it was her case that her name was not illegally included in the panel and even though persons with lesser marks have been empanelled. It was her case that on her representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education with regard to the aforesaid illegality in the panel and appointment therefrom, an office order was issued vide letter no. 5144 dated 15.10.1990 for her appointment. Again the Presenting Officer who was in custody and could easily have produced necessary records in the background of the claim of the petitioner deliberately withheld the official documents and records from the Enquiry Officer to enable him to arrive at a finding if the petitioner had ever made a representation to the authorities with regard to illegalities in the panel, excluded her name, and appointed those having lesser marks than her. Much less production of these records, even letter of the RDDE referred to by the petitioner numbered as 5144 dated 15.10.1990 was not placed before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer. Corroborative evidence was only sought to be placed with regard to the closure of the School on certain dates and non-payment of salary to support the plea of - 3 - illegality of her appointment. On this basis a finding was arrived at in the proceedings of the illegality of her appointment as her name did not figure amongst those empanelled. This Court has no hesitation in holding that on this score also the finding of the Enquiry Officer without any discussion or materials before him of the illegality in the panel, the complaint by the petitioner and the subsequent orders issued by the RDDE vide letter no. 5144 dated 15.10.1990 makes the finding of the Enquiry Officer perverse. The enquiry report on Charges 2 and 3 is based on surmises and conjectures arriving at no positive conclusion of the illegality in the appointment of the petitioner but only attempting to make suggestion to that effect. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied that there has been no enquiry worth the name to arrive at a determination of any illegality of the appointment of the petitioner. That the respondents have been given more than adequate opportunity under the orders of the Court persuades this Court to end the harassment of the petitioner by quashing the enquiry report and the consequent order of punishment dated 22.1.2008.” 3. We wanted to know from the government counsel as to whether the Regional Deputy Director, Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, in whose name the appointment order is said to have been issued, was examined in the enquiry or not. Initially, he said that the said officer has been examined. Then, we wanted him to read the statement of the said officer recorded in the enquiry proceedings. He was not able to show that the said authority was at all examined nor he read the statement of the said officer. The best person who could have thrown light about the legality and correctness of the appointment order dated 15th October, 1990, was the person who allegedly issued the appointment order. Now the Standing counsel submits that he is not - 4 - sure whether such officer was at all examined in the enquiry. 4. Be that as it may, the consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be said to suffer any legal flaw. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. 5. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 6093 of 2008) as well. 6. L.P.A. having been dismissed, the application for interim relief (I.A. No. 6094 of 2008) does not survive. I. A No. 6094 of 2008 also stands disposed of. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/