IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.411 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 20793/2010) Sujit Kumar Mishra @ Babloo Kumar Mishra S/o Braj Kishore Mishra, resident of village Harpur, PO Manva Parsi PS Shikarpur, District- West Champaran ......Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah 3. Block Development Officer, Narkatiaganj, District- West Champaran 4. District Superintendent of Education, Bettiah 5. Deputy Superintendent of Education, Bettiah 6. Member, District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, West Champaran .......Respondents For the Appellant: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. advocate For the State: AC to SC 1 ---------------------------------- 4 11-08-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AC to SC 1 for the State. This appeal is against the order dated 14-2-2011 whereby learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition bearing CWJC no. 20793/ 2010 preferred by the appellant. The facts appearing from the order under appeal show that petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Later he was taken into custody on account of Shikarpur PS case no. 120/2008 instituted for an alleged offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal 2 Code. Admittedly, the trial of said case is still to take place and appellant is enjoining the privilege of bail. His appointment was cancelled only on account of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. The writ court declined to interfere with the said order on the ground that appellant was not a permanent employee of the State Government and, therefore, no enquiry is required to be held for terminating the contract of his service. In our considered view, the order cancelling appointment of the appellant only on account of lodging of a criminal case u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in law. The criminal case is wholly unrelated to official duties of the appellant and, hence, there was no requirement of holding any enquiry. The other option open to the State was to wait for the outcome of the criminal case and in the event of conviction they could have decided to terminate or not to terminate the service on the ground of such conviction which may involve moral turpitude. In any case, before the allegations made in the criminal case 3 could be proved during trial, holding the appellant unfit for the post of Panchayat Teacher/ Prakhand Teacher is clearly arbitrary. Such punitive action by the State as an employer is against the requirement of fairness in all State action. In view of aforesaid discussion, the order impugned in the writ petition cancelling the service of the appellant/ writ petition is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed with all consequential benefits of pay and emoluments etc. The appeal is, thus, allowed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)