IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2805 of 2009 SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 02.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner as with regard to a direction of the Commissioner, Magadh Division , Gaya, as contained in letter No. 66/turk njckj dated 12.02.2009 and the consequential order passed by the District Superintendent of Education (D.S.E.), Gaya in his office order vide Memo No. 237 dated 14.2.2009 as with regard to placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of misbehaviour with a lady teacher namely, Anjana Kumari , Prakhand Shikshika, is based on the plea that the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya is not authorized by law to take any decision with regard to service condition of a teacher of Primary School. It however appears that such action against the petitioner was necessitated due to uncalled for behaviour of the petitioner and therefore the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya and/or D.S.E., Gaya ought to have at least heard the petitioner in person by issuing a notice to him before taking a decision to place the petitioner under suspension, as has not been done in the impugned - 2 - order. This Court would find that the District Superintendent of Education has already submitted a departmental enquiry report along with materials including the fact finding report of the Area Education Officer, Sherghati and the same has also been placed before the Commissioner of Gaya District through a letter of D.S.E, Gaya dated 17th February, 2009 (Annexure-12). In that view of the matter, this Court for the time being without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner would direct the Commissioner of Magadh Division, Gaya to take a final decision as with regard to continuation of suspension of the petitioner, in the light of the fact finding report submitted by the Area Education Officer, Sherghati to the D.S.E. Gaya. It goes without saying that if ultimately, the Commissioner would find that the suspension of the petitioner at the instance of Anjan Kumari was motivated, he would apart from setting aside the order of suspension also direct for giving wide publicity of the false allegation made against the petitioner so that his reputation in the society, which has been vitally and adversely affected on account of the impugned order of suspension, is restored. On the other hand, if the order of suspension of the petitioner is found to be justified by the Commissioner, - 3 - he must a speaking order giving reasons in brief, for rejecting the reasoning/findings in the enquiry report submitted by the Area Education Officer and forwarded by the District Superintendent of Education. In any event, if the order of suspension is continued, the departmental enquiry must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of the aforesaid order of Divisional Commissioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)