IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6799 of 2010 1. NAGENDRA THAKUR S/O LATE RAM DENI THAKUR R/O VILL.- HARIDASPUR, P.O.- HARIDASPUR, P.S. KANTI, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS IN-CHARGE HEADMASTER IN UP-GRADED MIDDLE SCHOOL, MATHIYA MORSANDI, P.O. MORSANDI, ANCHAL- MOTIPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER-CUM-THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MUZAFFARPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MOTIPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 8. SRI SHAMBHU NATH PANDEY S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER THE THEN GRAM PANCHAYAT SUPERVISOR, MOTIPUR BLOCK, MOTIPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIDHWALIA BLOCK, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ 9. THE HEADMASTER, MIDDLE SCHOOL MOTIPUR ANCHAL- MOTIPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR---------------RESPONDENTS ----------- 3 4.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Let the Block Development Officer, Motipur district-Muzaffarpur take cognizance of the explanation offered by the petitioner with regard to the circumstances under which he failed to perform the duty as Booth Level Officer, the responsibility which was thrust upon him in terms of annexure-3 dated 28.10.2009. Since this Court is not in a position to verify all the relevant records and communications in this regard, therefore the stand and the explanation of the petitioner can best be looked into after verifying the relevant records at the local level. The Block Development Officer, Motipur would be obliged to pass appropriate order on the explanation offered by the petitioner within two months from the date of production or communication of a copy of this order. - 2 - It is clarified that if the explanation of the petitioner is found to be in order then steps will be taken to release the salary of the petitioner or else the petitioner must be informed of the reason within the same time frame. Thereafter the petitioner has remedy as per the law. So far as the payment of current salary is concerned, if the petitioner is working and performing his responsibility there is no reason why non-performance of his duty in past would come in the way of payment of current salary. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)