IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9190 of 2004 1. BALI RAM PRASAD, SON OF LATE NARSINGH SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MISKOT, POLICE STATION MOTIHARI, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. 2. SURENDRA PRASAD VERMA, SON OF LATE RAJ MANGAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TILBHITA, POLICE STATION SARAIYA, DISTRICT – MUZAFFARPUR. ………… PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY (SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) –CUM- DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR (SECONDARY EDUCATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. ………….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 04/ 02.02.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioner No. 1 Bali Ram Prasad was posted as Head Clerk in the office of District Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran and petitioner no. 2 Surendra Prasad Verma was posted as Bill Clerk in the office of District Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran. The Treasury Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran made a written report alleging illegal and fraudulent withdrawal from the treasury in the name of fake teachers, on the basis of this written report Bettiah Town P.S. Case No. 221 of 2002 was registered under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC. In the FIR allegations were made against D.E.O., Bettiah, Accountant of the office of the District Education Officer and also against Head Master 2 of Yugal Kishore Prasad Singh High School, Bhaisahi, but no allegation was against these two petitioners. Complaint Case No. 1311C of 2002 was also filed by the District Education Officer, Bettiah before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah and C.J.M., Bettiah issued direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to institute a police case for offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471/34 of the IPC and investigate the case. Two other FIR were also instituted by the District Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran in which Mohan Chand Mokim the then D.E.O. and some other persons were named as accused. So far these two petitioners are concerned, they are not named as accused in any of the FIR or the complaint case filed by the D.E.O. During investigation name of Regional Deputy Director of Education was found to be involved in fraudulent transaction. Despite this fact, in order to save himself, he issued show cause notice to these two petitioners and some other persons. The departmental proceeding was initiated framing charge against the petitioners regarding fraudulent withdrawal of money on the basis of forged papers from the treasury. Show cause 3 was filed by the petitioners. The enquiry report was prepared by the R.D.D.E. himself. In the long enquiry report there is discussion about several things but in none of the paragraphs there is anything to show that any documentary or other evidence was collected, which could have indicated involvement of these petitioners in the fraudulent withdrawal, rather the discussion in the enquiry report shows involvement of the D.E.O. and one Vijay Sharma, who was the Accountant in the office of the D.E.O. and the role of Treasury Officer was also found to be suspicious. Simply because these two petitioners were posted as Head Clerk and Bill Clerk in the office of the D.E.O. their names were also involved. Along with the writ application letters written by different authorities for institution of the FIR has been annexed. The enquiry report of the R.D.D.E., supervision report of the D.I.G. in connection with the police cases as well as audit report has been annexed to show that in none of the documents anywhere any evidence has been indicated showing involvement of these two petitioners, rather in all these documents role of Vijay Sharma has been highlighted. Role of D.E.O. has been found to be 4 suspicious and the question has also been raised against the Treasury Officer because he accepted those fraudulent bills and allowed payment of the amount. Counsel for the petitioners submits that simply in the end of the enquiry report the R.D.D.E. has mentioned that prima facie evidence is there against the petitioners, but what was the prima facie evidence regarding that there is no discussion. Counsel for the petitioners drawn my attention towards Annexure-16 contained in letter no. 260 issued by the District Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran dated 31.7.2003 where he has recommended to exonerate the petitioners from all allegations since their names are not mentioned as accused in any of the FIR and their show cause as well as other materials indicates that there is no involvement of these petitioners in the fraudulent withdrawal of the money. Counsel for the petitioners submits that completely overlooking the letter issued by the present D.E.O. the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur placing reliance on the enquiry report of the R.D.D.E. has held the petitioners guilty and also a punishment directed to 5 withhold one increment with immediate effect. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur is completely illegal as it is against the evidence on record. Perused the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that prima facie evidence has been found against the petitioners showing their involvement in the fraudulent withdrawal of money from treasury, as such minor punishment of withholding one annual increment has been passed. Counsel appearing for the State was asked to show from the documents that what was the prima facie evidence found showing involvement of the petitioners, but despite all efforts he could not be successful to point out any of the evidence discussed either in the enquiry report or any other document to show involvement of the petitioners. Even for imposing minor punishment it was essential that any evidence would have been there to connect the petitioners with the allegations with regard to which charge was framed. Since there is complete absence of any 6 evidence, it is not proper that even minor punishment should have been passed against the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure -17 dated 28.11.2003 is quashed. This application is allowed. As informed both the petitioners have now retired, as such the respondents will pass consequential orders, allowing all consequential benefits to the petitioners on account of quashing of the impugned order of punishment imposed against them. The consequential orders must be passed within three months from the date of production/communication of this order. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)