IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9165 of 2003 Pushpalal Yadav, son of late Banwali Yadav, Resident of Village Kariban, P.S. Laukahi, District Madhubani. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Education Superintendent, Madhubani. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police (C), Crime Investigation Department, Patna. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. 8. Headmaster, Middle School Mahthaur Khurd (Phulparas), District Madhubani. 9. Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. 10. Area Education Officer, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. -------- Respondents With CWJC No.1203 of 2003 Ram Awtar Yadav, son of late Kari Yadav, Resident of Village Kuriban, Police Station Laukahi, District Madhubani. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. District Education Superintendent, Madhubani. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police (C), Crime Investigation Department, Patna. 6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Range, Darbhanga. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. 8. Headmaster, Middle School Mahthaur Khurd (Phulparas), District Madhubani. 9. Superintendent of Police, Madhubani. 10. Area Education Officer, Ghoghardiha, District Madhubani. -------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Madhu Prasun, Adv. Mr. M.S. Hoda, Adv. Mrs. Renu Kumari, Adv. For the State :- Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, Adv. GA 10 Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv. AC to GA 10 2 ----------- 3 13.09.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State in both the cases as with regard to the following prayer, being similar in both the cases:- “1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs, order/ orders, direction/ directions quashing/ setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 2934/Madhubani dated 18.8.2001 of Respondent No.2, District Education Superintendent, Madhubani only to the extent of one annual increment of salary and direct to make payment with appropriate interest therein, whereby the petitioner has been put in extreme economical loss and physical, mental harassment till his service period in most arbitrary manner and that too without any basis or proper enquiry or providing the petitioner any reasonable opportunity to explain. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate order/orders commanding the concern respondents to make payment to the petitioner his entire due suspension allowance and other consequential benefits from the period 26.8.1997 (the date of suspension) to 18.8.2001 3 (the date of revocation) till the date of joining i.e. 26.8.2001 except 1st April, 2001 to 26th August 2001 which the petitioner has been paid full amount with appropriate interest thereon.” and perusing the materials on record, this Court would hold that the concerned Collector and the District Superintendent of Education of Madhubani district do not seem to be aware of the basic of service jurisprudence and still keep on passing illegal orders. In the present cases, both the petitioners, teachers in Government Primary Schools, were made accused in a criminal case and were placed under suspension by an order dated 22.9.1997 on the ground of pendency of Laukahi P.S. Case No. 167 of 1996 dated 23.11.1996. Such order of suspension was in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and a departmental proceeding was also conducted on the basis of identical memo of charge framed on 9.1.1999, wherein, the enquiry officer had submitted enquiry report on 24.7.2001 exonerating both the petitioners from all the charges. Thereafter, the impugned orders, inflicting the petitioners 4 with punishment of stoppage of one increment was passed while revoking the order of suspension. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani in CWJC No. 9165 of 2003, wherein, all that has been stated against the petitioner Pushpa Lal Yadav is that though the police have not submitted charge-sheet against him, the investigation is still continuing in the criminal case. In the second case, a counter affidavit has also been filed by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, wherein, all that has been explained is that since the petitioner was made an accused in the criminal case and was absconder, an order of suspension was passed against him and the order of suspension was ultimately revoked by withholding one increment. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the District Superintendent of Education, there is nothing to show that the charges against the petitioner either in the criminal case or in the departmental proceeding had been proved 5 and as such, it would be difficult for this Court to uphold the order of punishment. It is well settled that if the charges against the delinquent is not proved and the disciplinary authority chooses to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, he can still do so by issuing a fresh notice disclosing the reasons for such difference of opinion and rejecting of the findings in the enquiry report but no order of punishment can be passed straightway after receiving of an enquiry report exonerating delinquent even without a notice and/or opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. This Court, in fact, would strongly disapprove the manner in which the order of punishment has been passed on the direction of the Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, who has been empowered to impose minor punishment in terms of the statutory rules governing the service condition of the teachers of the primary school. The Collector of the district in capacity of Chairman of the Committee ought to have taken into consideration that the 6 charges against the petitioners were not proved in the departmental proceeding and if any of the charge was worth reconsideration for the purposes of being taken into account for inflicting punishment on the petitioners, there had to be a show-cause notice followed by a reasoned order. As with regard to the explanation of the petitioners absconding from duty on account of being made accused in a criminal case and/or not informing the authority of their being involved in a criminal case, an order of punishment of stoppage of one increment could not have been passed. If the petitioners were absconding from duty, their payment of salary could have been withheld and they could have been placed under suspension on account of dereliction of duty but when the enquiry officer in the enquiry report has given a clean-chit to both the petitioners and has not found them remaining absent from duty, much less, absconding from duty, it will be difficult for this Court to approve the impugned order of punishment. That being so, the impugned order 7 imposing punishment of both the petitioners are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Collector-cum-Chairman of the District Education Establishment Committee, who now will re-consider the materials on record from the stage of submission of enquiry report as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998(7)SCC 84 and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. Such an exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, both the writ applications are disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)