Patna High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 22 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1986 of 2021
======================================================
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sitav Ram R/o Village Pratappur,, P.O. Pratappur, P.S.
Dariyapur, Distt.Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Mass Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director (Janshiksha) Education Department, Bihar, Patna.
6. The District Magistrate, Saran.
7. The District Transport Officer, Saran.
8. The District Education Officer, Saran.
9. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Saran
10. The District Program Officer, (Literacy), Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC 8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-02-2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"(i) To quash the Memo No. 1715 dated
06.11.2020 issued by the director Jan shiksha Cum
Additional Secretary Education Department, Bihar,
Patna whereby and where under the appointment of the
petitioner has been cancelled on the ground he was not
working as a instructor continuously three years on the
basis of his payment and also direct the authority to
recover the paid salary. A copy of memo dated
06.11.2020 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure - 1 to this application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1986 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
(ii) To further direct the respondent
authority not disturb the petitioner in his discharging
duty as a Group - D post in Sarvoday High School
Bhagwanpur, Dariyapur, Saran.
And or any other
appropriate relief(s) to the petitioners for which they
may be found entitled under the fact and circumstances
of the case."
3. Petitioner was initially appointed on ad hoc basis,
thereafter, by virtue of judicial pronouncement cited in Annexure -
10 among others petitioner services were regularized while
imposing various conditions. One of the condition is relating to
filing of an affidavit that he has worked for continuous three
years. The official respondent received complaint against the
petitioner stating that petitioner has not fulfilled the relevant
condition imposed in the order of regularization to the extent that
he has not completed three years of service, therefore, the affidavit
filed by the petitioner is contrary to factual aspect of the matter.
Thus, respondents have proceeded to cancel the regularization
insofar as petitioner is concerned. Hence the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the
petitioner is regular holder of the post pursuant to Annexure- 10,
the respondents cannot cancel the regularization order without
providing an opportunity. It is further submitted that such
termination or cancellation of regularization is on account of
complaint against the petitioner that petitioner has filed false
Patna High Court CWJC No.1986 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
affidavit. In such an event, domestic enquiry is warranted. On this
ground the impugned order is liable to set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State
resisted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and submitted
that when the order of regularization itself is clear that such of
those regularized persons were required to file an affidavit and
filing of an affidavit by the petitioner is contrary to factual aspect,
therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. Short question for consideration in the present petition is
before order dated 06.11.2020, petitioner is subjected to domestic
enquiry or not? Undisputed facts are that petitioner was appointed
on ad hoc basis and his services were regularized by virtue of
judicial pronouncement cited in Annexure - 10. The petitioner was
required to comply conditions imposed in Annexure - 10. It is
learnt that he has complied in filing affidavit. Some person has
given complaint stating that petitioner has filed false affidavit
before authorities in respect of regularization. Based on such
complaint, the official respondents have proceeded to cancel the
order of regularization/appointment. The impugned action dated
06.11.2020 is without holding of domestic enquiry. It is to be
noted that once the order of regularization is passed in favour of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1986 of 2021 dt.22-02-2022
the petitioner even though with a certain condition even then
petitioner is entitled to participate in the domestic enquiry for the
reasons that there were serious allegations levelled against the
petitioner that he had filed false affidavit in order to get his service
regularized. The Apex Court time and again held that even
temporary employees are entitled for domestic enquiry if the
allegations are made against such temporary employee before
terminating his/her service. In view of these facts and
circumstances impugned order dated 06.11.2020 stands set aside.
8. Writ petition is allowed.
9. Petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits during the
intervening period from the date of termination till reinstatement.
The same shall be calculated and disbursed within three months.
The concerned official respondent is at liberty to initiate enquiry
against the petitioner for furnishing false information in contrary
to Annexure - 10 within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of this order.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 25.02.2022
Transmission Date
