IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6312 OF 2005 BAL BHADRA SINGH, SON OF LATE MATHURA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SABIKPUR, POST OFFICE DAMODARPUR, POLICE STATION LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. AT PRESENT, POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER, MIDDLE SCHOOL, BALGUDAR, LAKHISARAI …….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, MUNGER 5. THE COMMISSIONER, MUNGER DIVISION, MUNGER 6. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAKHISARAI 7. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, LAKHISARAI 8. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, LAKHISARAI 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CUM BLOCK ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, LAKHISARAI 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, HALSI, LAKHISARAI …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS *********** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. AJAY KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE MR. MD. IMTEYAZ AHMAD, ADVOCATE MR. NILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. SANJAY PRAKASH VERMA, AC TO GA 3 ********* 4 04/02/2011 This petitioner has come before this Court twice, first time against the order of suspension and on the second occasion, he has filed the writ application for payment of salary. During the pendency of the writ application, the order dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure-1) was issued by the District Superintendent of Education cum Sub Divisional Education Officer, Lakhisarai, ordering punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This Court observed that the petitioner would be free to challenge the order before the appellate 2 authority in accordance with law. The Court also condoned the limitation in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner challenged the order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority which is contained in Anexure-2. The appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Munger Division rejected the plea of the petitioner and held that he was guilty of the offences for which he was charged. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was a major punishment and in view of the aforesaid facts, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry after giving the petitioner notice and hearing him, if he duly appeared in the enquiry and thereafter pass an order recommending the punishment. It is submitted that merely by issuing a show cause and thereafter without holding a full-fledge enquiry to examine whether the petitioner was absent from duty or he was responsible for dereliction of duty, an order of major punishment could not be issued. Referring to Clause 21 of the BIHAR RAJYA RAJYAKRIT PRATHAMIK VIDYALAYA SHISHAK (TRANSFER AND DISCIPLINARY) RULES, 2002, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect has been described as a major punishment. 3 On perusal of the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit, it appears that the impugned orders do not indicate whether an enquiry was held, in which the petitioner was noticed with respect to the allegations leveled against him, although the appellate order does speak of production of the register to indicate that the petitioner was absent from duty. Nevertheless, since it has been settled by several decisions of this Court, one of them being the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vs. Kunj Behari Misra {1998 (7) SCC 84] and `the case of Nawalesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Others [2005 (4) PLJR 63] that it is essential that opportunity should be given to the incumbent before inflicting a major punishment, it would be proper to remand the matter for the said purpose. I thus quash Annexure-1 and 2. I, therefore, remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority who will issue notice to the petitioner, appoint an Enquiry Officer who will conduct an enquiry and thereafter pass an order regarding the charges which have already been issued and framed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Disciplinary Authority concerned. The consequential benefits as a result of quashing of Annexure-1 and 2 would be considered after completion of the disciplinary 4 proceedings. The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Superintendent of Education, Lakhisarai within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )