IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9762 of 2009 Sayeed Akhtar, son of Abdur Rauf, resident of village- Kadwa, P.S. Kasba, District- Purnea, presently posted as Primary Teacher in Primary Juljuly under Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj, P.S. & District- Kishanganj ………… Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of Human Resources and Development, Govt. of Bihar 2.The Director, Higher Education 3.The Director, Primary Education 2 & 3 the Department of Human Resources and Development, Govt. of Bihar 4.The Diustrict Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj 5.The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj ………… Respondents ----------- 6. 1.10.2010 In this writ application petitioner has challenged letter No. 1693 dated 16.10.2008, as contained in Annexure-3, which was issued under the signature of respondent District Superintendent of Education, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why on account of having completed the training course of one year only his appointment may not be cancelled and action may not be taken for recovery of honorarium paid to him. Petitioner was appointed as Nagar Shikshak by the Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj under the orders of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad dated 28.2.2007, vide Annexure-2. He joined his services and was posted in Primary School, Juljuli, Kishanganj. He joined as such and started his duty. 2 All of a sudden, he received the impugned notice form the office of the District Superintendent of Education, in which, he along with four other teachers were asked show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee of the Nagar Parishad, Kishanganj, having been validly selected by the selection committee and appointed under the orders of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Parishad. Therefore, the District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj had no authority to issue show cause notice to him. He submits that in response to the said show cause notice, petitioner filed his reply in time. However, without considering the same and without final order being passed by the Nagar Parishad, payment of salary of the petitioner was stopped after the issue of the show cause notice. He submits that petitioner has again been issued show cause notice by the District Superintendent of Education through memo No. 1076 dated 15.10.2009, vide Annexure-6 with the supplementary affidavit. To this show cause notice also, he filed reply in time, but till date, respondents have not taken any decision and petitioner is not receiving his salary since October, 2008. He submits that the validity of his appointment can only be questioned and 3 considered by the Nagar Parishad and the Selection Committee constituted under the rules and the District Superintendent of Education had no authority to take any action against the petitioner on his own. Counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit has been filed and learned counsel for the respondents submits that District Superintendent of Education was the secretary of the Selection Committee as he was also performing the duties of Sub-Divisional Education Officer. He referred to clause (ka) of sub-rule (9) of Rule 9 of Bihar Nagar Nikay Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan awm Sewa Shart) Niyamali, 2006 to contend that the Sub- Divisional Officer is the ex-officio secretary of the Selection Committee constituted for preparation of panel for appointment of teachers under Nagar Parishad. Since the District Superintendent of Education was functioning as Sub-Divisional Education Officer also he was Member Secretary of the Committee, and therefore, in that capacity, he had issued the letter. However, the fact remains that the show cause notice issued by him does not mention at all that he had issued the show cause notices under the authority of the chairman of the committee or as per 4 resolution of the Committee itself. Clearly, as a secretary of the Committee, he could not issue show cause notice to the petitioner on his own without being authorized in this respect by the Chairman of the Committee or on the basis of the resolution of the Committee itself. The show cause notices do not mention that any order was passed for stopping of salary of the petitioner still, it is not denied that since October, 2008, salary of the petitioner is stopped. Even if the dispute being raised by the show cause notice is considered to be bonafide, since the petitioner had filed his reply, matter required consideration by the Selection Committee itself which only could take a final decision in the matter. This has not been done in the last two years. Therefore, this court does not find any justification in withholding of salary of the petitioner, which has been done by the respondents since October, 2008. Therefore, instead of quashing show cause notices, this Court directs that the respondent District Superintendent of Education shall not take any decision on his own and if he is of the opinion that the validity of the appointment is required to be reconsidered, he shall refer the matter to the Selection Committee for its appropriate decision 5 along with show cause reply filed by the petitioner. However, till that decision is taken by the Committee and communicated to the petitioner, petitioner will be entitled for his salary. Therefore, the respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner withheld with effect from October, 2008 till today and to continue to pay his current salary till final decision is taken by the Committee. Payments of arrears of salary, as directed, shall be released to the petitioner within one month from the receipt/production of the copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Prakash/Pradeep ( J. N. Singh, J.)