Shafi Ahmad vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1862 Patna

                               1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 401 of 2020
=======================================================

Shafi Ahmad, aged about 41 years(male) son of Md. Bhola Rain, resident of Village-Nari, P.O. Nazi Bhadawn, P.S. Ghanshyampur, at present headmaster, Primary School, Mishroliya Gaura Bauram, P.S. Ghanshyampur, District- Darbhanga.

                                   ................                       Petitioner

                                    Versus

1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

2. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

3. The District Programme Officer, Darbhanga.

4. The Block Education Officer, GauraBauram, Darbhanga, District-

Darbhanga

................. Respondent 1st Set

5. Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj Nari, P.O. Nari, P.S. Ghanshyampur, Block-Ghanshyampur, Block-GauraBauram District Darbhanga.

6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Nari, P.S. Ghanshyampur, Block GauraBauram, District-Darbhanga .................. Respondents 2nd set

======================================================= Appearance For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Adv. For the Respondents : Smt. Binita Singh, SC 28 =============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dated: 06.04.2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for quashing

the order contained in letter no.1008 dated 11.6.2019 issued under

the signature of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga

whereby direction was given to the District Programme Officer,

Darbhanga to suspend the petitioner and to institute an F.I.R.

against him. By an interlocutory application being I.A.No.1 of

2020 which was allowed by order dated 5.3.2021 the petitioner

has further prayed for quashing the order contained in letter

no.0113 dated 27.11.2019 issued under the signature of the

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nari whereby the petitioner

was placed under suspension as also for quashing the order

contained in letter no. 2362 dated 7.12.2019 issued under the

signature of the District Education Officer, Darbhanga whereby it

was ordered to institute a certificate case against the petitioner for

recovery of the Government money defalcated by him.

The case of the petitioner in brief is that while the

petitioner was working as Incharge Headmaster, Primary School,

Mishroliya, an application was filed by a stranger before the

'Janshikayat Koshang' alleging misappropriation of fund of the

school by the petitioner. The allegations were verified by the

Block Education Officer and was prima facie found to be true to

the effect that the petitioner had defalcated a sum of Rs. 7.5 lacs

meant for uniform and scholarship of the students. It was stated

that the said amount had been used for construction of building in

the premises of the school.

It is the case of the petitioner that no show cause notice

was given to him and he was placed under suspension with the

further direction to institute an F.I.R. against him. The mandatory

provisions of the CCA Rules were not followed and there was

violation of the principles of natural justice. During pendency of

the writ application, by order dated 27.11.2019 the petitioner was

placed under suspension and further by order dated 7.12.2019, a

further direction was issued to institute a certificate case against

him for recovery of the defalcated amount. The said two orders

were challenged by the above mentioned interlocutory

application. The main contention of the petitioner is that the

mandatory provisions of the CCA Rules not having been followed

by the respondent authorities, the orders impugned could not be

sustained and in any case of the matter the order of suspension be

vacated.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent

no.2 and a separate counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent

no.5 i.e the Panchayat Secretary. It was contended by learned

counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was

appointed in the year 2003 as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the

prevalent Scheme and subsequently, he was absorbed as a

Panchayat teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher

(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012. It was

contended that Panchayat teachers not being government

servants, the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 will not be

applicable in case of the petitioner and instead the provisions of

the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and

Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 would be applicable. The Rules

of 2012 contains a provision for disciplinary action against the

Panchayat teachers.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking

into consideration the submissions made, this Court is of the

opinion that although it is true that the Bihar Panchayat

Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules,

2012 would be applicable in case of Panchayat teachers like the

petitioner herein, however, the fact to be kept in mind is that the

petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.11.2019 itself in

contemplation of a departmental proceeding. It is also a fact that

more than one year and four months having passed, the

departmental proceeding has still not concluded and the petitioner

continues to remain under suspension.

So far as quashing of the order contained in letter dated

11.6.2019 is concerned, the direction contained therein was to

take steps to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of a

departmental proceeding and to register an F.I.R. against him.

Both the steps having been taken, nothing remains for the Court

to decide so far as the said order is concerned.

With respect to the order contained in letter dated 7.12.2019

directing the authorities to institute a certificate case against the

petitioner is concerned, the Court finds no illegality in the same

and the prayer of the petitioner is dismissed.

With respect to the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order contained in letter dated 27.11.2019 placing the petitioner under suspension is concerned, although the Court does not find

any illegality in the said order, in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the Court deems it proper and expedient to direct the

respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding

against the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ application stands disposed of.

                                                       (Partha Sarthy, J)

    Bibhash


AFR/NAFR

CAV DATE

Uploading Date      09.04.2021

Transmission Date