IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4252 of 2002 1. KAILASH PRASAD SAH, S/O LATE RAMPHAL SAH, PRESENTLY POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN MIDDLE SCHOOL, KUANHIN, ANCHAL-MOTIPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. 2. JANARDAN PRASAD, S/O SRI RAM SINGHASAN PRASAD, PRESENTLY POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN PRIMARY SCHOOL, PANCHRUKHI, MUSHAHAR TOLA, ANCHAL-MOTIPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. ……………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUZAFFARPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 28.04.2010 Heard Mr.Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioners have filed this writ application for quashing of the notice issued to them, vide Annexure-5 and 5/1, by which, they were asked to furnish their show cause as to under what circumstances they had drawn the salary of the strike period when they were on strike. By the notice the payments of the salary of the petitioners have been stopped till further orders. It appears that the petitioners filed their reply to the notice and, thereafter, final orders dated 28.2.2002 were passed by the District Superintendent of Education, as 2 contained in Annexure-8, in respect of all the teachers who had drawn their salary of the strike period and it was ordered that the salary of the strike period drawn by them shall be recovered from their salary in two installments. This order, as contained in annexure-8, is also under challenge in this case. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners did not respond to the call for strike by the Association and they presented themselves in school for attending their duties. However, since the school was locked out by the striking teachers and the attendance register not available they reported for duty to the concerned Area Education Officer who placed them on deputation in his office and allowed them to attend the office and work there till the strike was over. He points out that in fact the petitioner no. 2 was placed on deputation in the office of Area Education Officer even prior to the commencement of the strike which will be evident from Annexure-3. He submits that the fact that they had worked in the office of Area Education Officer can be well established from 3 the records of the office. He also submits that the allegation that the petitioners had drawn their salary of the strike period in connivance with and under a conspiracy with the Area Education Officer is false. He submits that if the Area Education Officer was in conspiracy with them it was the Area Education Officer who ought to have been proceeded with first and should have been punished. He submits that no action has been taken against the said Area Education Officer and the petitioners have been made escape-goat for the alleged illegal acts of the Area Education Officer, if any. When the case was taken up on 9.2.2010, this Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit as to what action has been taken against the concerned Area Education Officers for issuing false certificates to the concerned incumbents and for allowing them to draw their salary of the strike period. Till now no such affidavit has been filed and the respondents have not put on record any material to satisfy this Court that the concerned Area Education Officers have been proceeded with and have been punished for such lapses. The only claim of the 4 respondents is that the show cause has been asked from the concerned Area Education Officers. The order against the petitioners and other teachers vide Annexure-8 was issued on 20.2.2002, it appears that even after eight years the respondents have not taken any decision against the erring Area Education Officers. This clearly shows that the respondents are not serious in proceeding against the concerned Area Education Officers and punish them for their lapses. The respondents are clearly satisfied by making the petitioners and other such teachers as escape- goat without punishing the main culprit in the matter. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should not be singled out for such punishment. Therefore, the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-8, so far as it affects the petitioners, and the show cause notice, as contained in Annexure-5 and 5/1, are quashed. The respondents will be at liberty to take action against the said Area Education Officers and only if the final orders are passed in the proceeding against them, the 5 respondents will be entitled to withhold the salary paid to the petitioners of the said strike period. In case, this is not done within four months from today the respondents shall refund the salary of the petitioners of the period realized from their pay, pursuant to order as contained in Annexure-8, forthwith. The writ application is thus allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)