IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.823 of 2010 1. ANIL SINGH S/O SEI GORAKH SINGH R/O VILL THAHARA, P.O. +P.S.MAKER, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA, AT PRESENT MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHOTH, P.S. MAKER,DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA 2. SRI NATH PRASAD S/O SRI INDRADEO PRASAD R/O VILL ROOPCHHAP, P.S. VISHAMBHARPUR, DISTT-GOPLALGANJ, AT PRESENT POSTED AS V.L.W.CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT CHHABIA, P.S. ISHUAPUR, DISTT-CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN AT CHAPRA 3. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SARAN AT CHAPRA, THROUGH ITS MEMBER 4. THE MEMBER OF DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. MRS. GUNJAN KUMARI D/O SRI KEDAR SINGH, W/O SRI BIPIN BIHARI R/O VILL THAHARA, P.O.+P.S.MAKER, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA 6. MR. PREM PRAKASH SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT WORKING A PRAKHAND TEACHER IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, BHATHA, P.O.+P.S.MAKER, DISTT-SARAN AT CHAPRA For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Onkar kumar, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh & Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocates For the State:- Mr. S.C.-3 ----------- 02. 15.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the private respondent no.5. The petitioners are stated to be the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhota, P.S.- Maker, District- Saran at Chapra, aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2009 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Saran at Chapra. The 2 Appellate Tribunal has given directions at paragraph-9 for initiating departmental proceedings against them for alleged irregularities in the appointment process. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to persuade the Court that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to give such directions and even, if the Tribunal was satisfied, it should have only made observations to that effect leaving the discretion to the authorities. He next submits that there is no discussion much less any reasoned finding based on evidence and materials against the petitioners in the body of the order to warrant the conclusion at paragraph-9 directing departmental proceedings against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to demonstrate from the discussions any material documentary or oral seeking to fix liability singularly on the petitioners uncontroverted by them before the Tribunal holding that they had committed gross irregularities in the process alone to justify the directions at paragraph-9 of the order. The contention on behalf of respondents that there are materials to this effect at paragraph-6 of the impugned order leaves the Court dissatisfied. It is only an expression and inconclusive opinion. The Appellate Tribunal does not possess powers 3 of the nature of a writ Court under Article 226. Even a Writ Court, except in extreme cases, desists from giving directions for initiation of departmental proceedings, but leaves it to the wisdom of the authority concerned after discussing the entire facts and circumstances of the case indicating the role of the delinquent concerned. The Tribunal should not have and could not have given direction for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, more so in the manner done. A departmental proceeding is a very serious matter. Insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, the consequence can be serious for him as an elected representative under Section 18 (5) of the Panchayat Raj Act. This Court therefore holds that the directions in paragraph-9 of the impugned order to start proceeding against the petitioners has to be read only as an expression of an opinion to be acted or not to be acted upon after consideration in appropriate exercise of discretion by the authorities. Needless to state that in any such proceeding the charges shall have to be proved on their own merit before the petitioners can be indicated. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the impugned order which remains open for consideration by the appropriate Forum at the behest of 4 the aggrieved. The application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)