IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.707 of 2009 Meena Gupta w/o Dr. Madan Prsad, r/o MIG Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District – Patna, presently posted as Assistant Teacher, Narayani Girls High School Patna City …Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The Internal Financial Adviser-cum-Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 5. The Regional Dy. Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 6. The District Education Officer, Patna 7. The Finance Secretary, Bihar, Patna 8. Smt. Lali Devi w/o not known to the appellant, Head Mistress, Narayani Girls High School, Patna City … ……………Respondents ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Nand Lal Kr. Singh, Advocate For the respondent nos. 1 to 7: Mr. Chhote Lal Nr. Singh, SC I Mr. Mohan Kr. Singh, AC to SC I 4 8/9/2009 Heard Mr. Nand Lal Kr. Singh, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chhote Lal Nr. Singh, counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7. The question involves is relating to regularization of the period from September 2004 till 1.11.2006. The present appellant had filed CWJC. No.11176 of 2007 claiming several reliefs. At present we are concerned with the question relating to payment 2 of arrears of salary from September 2004 to 1.11.2006. The single judge has observed as follows: “What emerges from the pleadings of the parties are disputed question of facts. What shall be the effect of the cancellation of transfer order by the Minister, what shall be the effect of the refusal to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post to which she had been transferred, subsequent cancellation of the said transfer, grant of leave by an In-charge Head Master when admittedly the Head Master was not in the office, any other dates that the petitioner may have absented from duty. These are all issues of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. An order withholding salary actually amounts to punishment as salary is otherwise statutory right. Therefore, before inflicting the petitioner with this punishment there has to be a proceeding in accordance with law to determine and arrive at a finding with due opportunity to the petitioner and final orders are then required to be passed. This shall be the decision making process with which this court finds a serious infirmity. There is, thus, no justification for the respondents to withhold the salary of the petitioner unless they apply this procedure.” From the above observation it is apparent that the learned single judge came to the conclusion that there are certain disputed questions of fact, which are required to be dealt with by the departmental authority and, therefore, the learned single judge has issued a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision in the matter relating to payment of salary between 3 September 2004 to 1.11.2006. The said direction of the learned single judge is under question by the writ petitioner. We do not think that it would be appropriate for this court to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge. The learned single judge, in our view, has rightly observed that there are certain disputed question of facts which are to be decided before the matter relating to payment of salary is finalized. However, we would like to make it clear that before taking further decision in the matter the present appellant shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the concerned authority, namely, Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, the second respondent. The said decision should be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the appellant feels still aggrieved by any further order, it will be open to him at that stage to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 4 With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. Neyaz/ ( P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)