IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9623 of 2000 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04- 26.9.2008 Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Prasun Kumar Singh, learned Govt. Advocate No.III. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.6.2000, passed by respondent no.4 (District Suprintendent of Education, Purnea),whereby the following punishment has been inflicted on him in pursuance of a departmental proceeding :- 1 fuUnu A 2 nks osru o`f) lap;h çHkko ls LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gS A 3 fuyacu vof/k esa bUgsa thou & fuokZg HkRrk ds vfrfjDr dqN Hkh ns; ugha gksxk A 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal for the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Brahmagyani, Sanjhaghat (Damdaha). He was by order dated 21.10.91 placed under suspension. He was served with charge-sheet dated 28.7.92 (Annexure 2), whereby the following charges were leveled against him :- 1 vkius fnukad 6-6-91 ds djhc 4-30 cts ls vijkg~u esa {ks+= f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh Hkokuhiqj ds vkokl ij tkdj /kedh nsdj xyr dke djokus dk ç;kl fd;k A 2 {ks= f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh ] Hkokuhiqj ] }kjk xyr dke djus ls bUdkj djus ij vkius ¼1½ Jh Hkxoku ç0 ;kno l0 f”k0 e0 fo0 xksfM+ ij ¼[kikSyks½ ¼2½ Jh jkeuUnu eaMy lgk;d f”k{kd e0 fo0 gliqgj ,oa ¼3½ v”kksd dqekj flag l0 f”k0 e0 fo0 dqdjkSu ¼ /kefMgk ½ ds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj fd;k A 3 {ks= f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh Hkokuhiqj us e/; fo|ky; czg~eKkuh ds lHkh f”k{kdksa dk osru Hkqxrku gsrq dkjZokbZ dj vuqifLFkfr fooj.kh dh ekax djus ij vkius nsus ls bUdkj fd;k rFkk mUgsa /kedh Hkh fn;k A f”k{kdksa dk vdkj.k vuqifLFkfr fooj.kh jksddj vkius lHkh f”k{kdksa dks vkfFkZd d’V esa j[kk tks euekuh rFkk ykijokgh - 2 - dk ekeyk curk gS A 4 {ks= f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] Hkokuhiqj }kjk Jh dSyk”k uk0 tk;loky l0 f”k0 dk fnukad 9-5-91 ds iwokZg~u esa ;ksxnku Lohdkj fd;k x;k rFkk Jh tk;loky us fnukad 9-5-91 ds iwokZg~u 8-30 cts fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku dj fn;k A 5 vkius Jh tk;loky dk vafdr osru çek.k &i= fojeu i= ysus ls bUdkj fd;k ftlds pyrs fd f”k{kd dks le; ij osru dk Hkqxrku ugha gqvk ftlds fy, vki tokcnsg gSa A vkius vius fu;a=h inkf/kdkjh ds lkFk f”k{kd ds e;kZnk ds fo:) dk;Z fd;k rFkk lHkh l0 f”k0 dks osru Hkqxrku ds lEcU/k esa le; ij vuqifLFkfr fooj.kh ugha çLrqr dj d’V e j[kk gS tks vkids ?kksj tokcnsgh rFkk euekuh dk |ksrd gS A 3. Certain developments took place which need not be noticed because those were in substance nullified by action of the authorities. The petitioner had shown his cause on 8.8.98 (Annexure 7) on a consideration of which the learned Enquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 6.10.99 (Annexure A). On consideration of the materials including the enquiry report, respondent no.4 passed the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a number of contentions in support of the writ petition. Learned government counsel has supported the impugned action. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I do not feel the necessity of considering the entire range of arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner because it can be disposed of on one small ground. It appears to us that the centre of the controversy against the petitioner was that he had taken the stand that other teachers in the school shall not be paid their salary till such time the issue relating to payment of salary and incidental matters with respect to Kailash Prasad Jaiswal, a teacher in that school, is sorted out. The remaining charges had almost automatically flown from that. We have on record a chart of statements of absentees which is part of Annexure 7 to the - 3 - writ petition, and is reproduced herein below for the facility of quick reference:- vuqifLFkfr fooj.kh ] ekg & tqykbZ ] 91 e/; fo|ky; czg~eKkuh ] vapy ] Hkokuhiqj ] iwf.kZ;k¡ Øekad f”k{kd dk uke dk;kZof/k vuqifLFkfr vodk”k dk çdkj vodk”k dh vof/k eUrO; dc ls dc rd dc ls dc rd dc ls dc rd 1 Jh jkepUnz iz0 flag 1-7-91 31-7-91 & & vkdfLed vodk”k 10-7-91 & 2 Ekq0 “kfQmYykg 1-7-91 31-7-91 vkdfLed vodk”k 8-7-91 & 3 Jh y{eh jke 1-7-91 31-7-91 vkdfLed vodk”k 3-7-91 16-7-91 & 4 Jh Ñ’.knso feJ 1-7-91 31-7-91 vkdfLed vodk”k 21-7-91 4-7-91 9-7-91 10-7-91 12-7-91 & 5 Jh dSyk”k iz0 tk;loky &&&&&&&&&&&&& LFkfxr &&&&&&&&&&&&& g0@& jkepUæ ç0 flag @ 5-8-91 ç/kkuk?;kid e/; fo|ky;] czg~eKkuh Jh dSyk”k çlkn tk;loky dk ;ksxnku lap;h dkxtkr vkaf”kd :I ls viw.kZ jgus ds dkj.k foi= LFkfxr A mDr f”k{kd dk ?kj fo|ky; ls ?kj dh nwjh 5 fdyksehVj gSA g0@& jkepUæ ç0 flag @ 5-8-91 ç/kkuk?;kid e/; fo|ky;] czg~eKkuh tc rd Jh dSyk”k çlkn tk;loky ds lEcU/k esa tk¡p ugha dj yh tkrh gS rc rd lHkh f”k{kdksa dk foi= LFkfxr jgsxk A g0@& vLi’V @ ------8-91 It appears that the authorities had directed the petitioner to prepare a list of summary of the attendance and leave of the concerned teachers on the basis of which salary would be paid to the school teachers. It further appears that the petitioner had felt difficulty in finalizing the particulars with respect to the said Kailsah Prasad Jaiswal. Secondly, the Area Education Officer had recorded his orders on the left side of the note dated 9.8.91. It is manifest on a plain reading of his note that the salary of the other teachers were withheld till - 4 - such time the issue relating to Kaliash Prasad Jaiswal was finalized and was evidently under orders of the Area Education Officer, the petitioner’s superior. It is thus manifest that no responsibility can go to the petitioner for non- payment or the delay in payment of the salary of other school teachers. The charges against the petitioner, therefore, seem to be based on non-est ground. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to the consequential benefits including payment of the differential amount of salary for the period of suspension. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl