IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.532 of 2008 NAGESHWAR PRASAD MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Adv. Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Adv. For the Respondents : ------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 18th July, 2008. The appeal suffers from delay of 63 days and for that an application (I.A. No. 4183 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, for the cause shown in the application, we are of the view that on merits the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 2. That the charge of causing pecuniary loss and financial irregularities is fully proved, is beyond question. There is also no merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant that sufficient opportunity was not given. As a matter of fact, the Single Judge has considered the matter at quite some length in right perspective. This is what has been observed by him: - “This Court has gone into the nature of different charges which were framed against the petitioner as also the defence of the petitioner recorded in the enquiry report and it appears that the petitioner had really committed a grave misconduct while working as Incharge Headmaster. For example, out of five charges all of which are very serious in nature, one of them was with regard to - 2 - making appointment of two Class-IV posts in the School. The Enquiry Officer has gone into the defence of the petitioner that he had made appointment on the basis of the panel which was prepared by the Collector of the district in terms of the circular, dated 03.12.1980 and has recorded a finding that both appointments were illegally made by him. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner stoutly defended the action of the petitioner on the basis of a certificate that the name of the person appointed by him on Class-IV panel was included in the Panel prepared by the Collector of Sitamarhi district but then he could not explain to this Court on the basis of any material as to how the Headmaster got the name of two persons from the Office of the Collector of the district without there being any recommendation for their appointment from the Office of the Collector of the District. A bare look and perusal of the Circular no. 16440 dated 03.12.1980 issued by the Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar would go to show that as a matter of fact the District Collector has been authorized to make a panel for all the Class-IV vacancies in the different department and the departmental head have to make requisition for filling up such Class-IV posts from that panel and it is only when the Collector of the district makes a specific recommendation of a particular person for his being appointed based on the roaster and reservation that the departmental head can make such appointment. The petitioner admittedly had never received any recommendation from the Office of the Collector to make such appointment of two persons and yet he took a plea that he had made appointment from that panel. The Enquiry Officer has gone into this plea and found it to be incorrect. If the petitioner had indulged in making an appointment on Class-IV posts by causing breach of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and create liability for the State by getting two persons illegally appointed, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not now go into the correctness of the findings as an appellate authority. In fact, there are other serious charges involving the serious financial irregularities which also have been found to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and as such it can not be said that the enquiry report is based on no evidence.” 3. We find no justifiable reason to take a - 3 - different view from the Single Judge. 4. The appeal is dismissed in limine. 5. This also disposed of I.A. No.4183 of 2008. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-