IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14380 OF 2004 NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE GYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHESHWARI, POLICE STATION SONO, DISTRICT JAMUI ……PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BUDH MARG, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY EDUCATION DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, JAMUI, DISTRICT JAMUI …………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********* 7 10/03/2011 The petitioner has challenged Annexures 1 and 2 i.e. the order of awarding punishment to the petitioner as a result of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner was working as the Headmaster in High School, Maheshwari in the district of Jamui. During his tenure as the Headmaster, some teachers in Civics were appointed by the Vidyalaya Seva Board who joined in the said school. Amongst the teachers appointed, one Uday Prasad Sinha joined in the school. The petitioner thereafter informed the District Superintendent of Education as well as the other authorities regarding the joining of Uday Prasad Sinha in the said school. In reply thereto, it transpired that he was asked to verify the academic certificates so that the genuineness of the appointment could be ascertained. The petitioner has specifically stated in the show cause that he sent the certificates for verification. Besides 2 which, in the show cause the petitioner has annexed the letters to indicate that the authorities at the directorate level through various letters have asked the petitioner to accept the joining of Uday Prasad Sinha. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact the allegations made against him are false and baseless. In the enquiry conducted subsequently, Counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the documents submitted by the petitioner were examined nor had the respondents examined any of their own documents which would indicate that the petitioner was involved in permitting Uday Prasad Sinha to join and work in the school in question. It is also an admitted fact that Uday Prasad Sinha was not paid the salary after he joined the school as verification of the certificates of Uday Prasad Sinha could not be confirmed from any source. The Enquiry Officer without referring to any of the documents presented by the petitioner found him guilty. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-11. Although details of the allegations against the petitioner have been given, the actual enquiry report had not been annexed and served on the petitioner. The main question to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner could have been awarded 3 punishment on the basis of the allegations made against him, considering that not a single document referred to by the petitioner, which is all part of the records of the department was verified, before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Since the enquiry report has not been annexed either by the petitioner or by the State, it is difficult for this Court to come to a finding as to whether there was any proper enquiry. In the aforesaid circumstances, I quash Annexure 1 and 2 and remand the matter back to the Director, Secondary Education to appoint an Enquiry Officer, if he thinks fit and proper, for conducting a fresh enquiry with respect to the allegations levelled against the petitioner after considering Annexure-10 and the documents filed by the petitioner. The consequential reliefs would be subject to the result of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner would be at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The enquiry should be completed within a period of four months thereafter. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the 4 Enquiry Officer. This application is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )