Patna High Court
Kumari Satyabhama vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1831 of 2025
======================================================
1. Kumari Satyabhama wife of Om Prakash, Resident of Village- Gopalpur,
P.S.- Basantpur, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar.
2. Tarkeshwar Singh son of Late Singhashan Singh Resident of Village-
Gopalpur, P.S. Basantpur, P.S. - Itarhi, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Director Administration-cum-Additional Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
8. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
9. The Block Education Officer, Ithari, Buxar.
10. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
11. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
12. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.
13. The Managing Committee, Sri Saraswati Sumitra Sanskrit Prathmik cum
Madhya Vidyalaya, Gopapur, Buxar.
14. Yoshoda Devi wife of Late Baban Singh, the then Secretary of Managing
Committee of Sri Saraswati Sumitra Sanskrit Prathmik cum Madhya
Vidyalaya, Gopapur, Buxar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Government Pleader (12)
For the BSSB : Mr. Md. Sayed Ahmad, Advocate
For the Resp.14 : Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
2/12
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned Government
Pleader (12) appearing on behalf of the State; Mr. Md. Sayed
Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board and Mr. S. K. Pandey, learned counsel
for the respondent no.14.
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 26.12.2024
contained in Memo No. 187 issued under the signature of
Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum-Appellate
Authority, Bihar, whereby and where under, the order
dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 2381 and order
dated 19.01.2023 contained in Memo No. 59 of the Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna has illegally and
arbitrarily as well as mechanically been quashed in
complete violation of Rule-13(8) and Rule-13.2 (8) of
Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit School Teachers
Service Conditions Rules, 2015.
(ii) For staying the operation of order dated
order dated 26.12.2024 contained in Memo No. 187
issued under the signature of Special Secretary
(Secondary Education), Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna-cum-Appellate Authority,
Bihar, whereby and where under, the order dated
31.12.2022
contained in Memo No. 2381 and order dated
19.01.2023 contained in Memo No. 59 of the Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, during the pendency of
this writ application.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus for directing and commanding the responsible
Respondent Authorities to make payment of arrears of
salary of the petitioners and also give all consequential
and ancillary benefits, for which they are legally entitled
to.
(iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the
Petitioners art legally entitled to, in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners being aggrieved by the
order contained in Letter No.21/2022 dated 12.07.2022 passed
by the then Secretary, Managing Committee without approval of
the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, preferred an appeal before the
Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as per the provision of
Rule 13 (8) of the Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit School
Teachers Service Conditions Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to
as "Rules, 2015"). The Chairman of the Board interfered with
the decision of the then Secretary, Managing Committee dated
09.07.2022 communicated vide Letter No.21/2022 dated
12.07.2022 and quashed the same vide order dated 31.12.2022
contained in Memo No. 2381. The Managing Committee
aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman of the Board
vide order dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No.2381, filed
an appeal before the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, in
accordance with the provision of Sub-Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015.
Referring to the impugned order passed by the Appellate
Authority contained in Memo no.187 dated 26.12.2024, learned
counsel further submitted that the Appellate Authority has not
taken note of the fact that at the relevant time when the order
was passed, he must have taken into account the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
08.08.2024 passed in CWJC No.5665 of 2013 (Rakesh
Chandra Jha and Anr Vs. The Bihar Sanskirt Siksha Board
and Ors), as well as, the statutory Rules, 2015 framed in respect
of the appointment and has given complete go-bye the
provisions contained in Section 22(2) of the Act which don't
empower the Managing Committee or the Board, for dismissal
or termination of teaching or non-teaching employees of such
schools, until Rules are framed as required under section 22(2)
of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. Bihar State Non
Government Recognised Sanskrit School (up to Madhyama
Standard) Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2015, has been
framed under Section 22(2) of the Act, which mandates the
Managing Committee to take disciplinary action and award
major or minor punishment, including the dismissal, as per the
provision of the Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015. The illegal action of
termination was taken by the Managing Committee on
09.07.2022.
4. In these backgrounds, learned counsel submitted
that there is non-compliance of the mandates prescribed under
Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015 while passing the order dated
26.12.2024. The Appellate Authority without following the
required procedure prescribed in sub-rule (4) of the Rule 13 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
the Rules, 2015 has inflicted the major punishment of dismissal
upon the petitioners. Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015 is reproduced
hereinafter:
"13- vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZA&¼1½ lfefr]
f'k{kd ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ djus ;k y?kq ;k o`gr
naM nsus esa l{ke gksxh%
ijUrq] naM nsus ds iwoZ] f'k{kd dks vius ekeys
ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk mfpr volj fn;k tk;xkA
izca/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr O;fDr 60 fnukad ds Hkhrj
v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ ds ;gka vihy nk;j dj ldrk
gS ,oa v/;{k lHkh i{kksa dks lqudj viuk fu.kZ; nsaxs tks vafre
gksxkA
¼2½ lfefr fo|ky; ds ifjoh{;eku O;fDr
lfgr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fuEufyf[kr dksbZ Hkh naM ns ldsxh&
¼d½ y?kq naM &
ifjfuUnk ¼lsUlj½
¼[k½ o`gr naM &
¼i½ inkoufrA
¼ii½ lsokUeqfDrA
¼iii½ inP;qfrA
¼3½ lfefr lac) O;fDr dks vius vkpj.k ds
laca/k esa lE;d :i ls fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk volj ns
ldsxk vkSj mlesa lfefr dk fu.kZ; vafre gksxkA
¼4½ fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ cM+k naM nsus ls iwoZ
lgk;d f'k{kd ds ekeys esa iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk iz/kkuk/;kid ds
ekeys esa lfefr ds v/;{k vkSj lfpo ds }kjk lfoLrkj vkjksi
i= rS;kj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj lfefr ladYi ds }kjk ml ij
fu.kZ; ysxkA bl izdkj fojfpr vkjksi fofuZfn"V gksaxs vkSj mlesa
lHkh lqlaxr rF; fn;s jgsaxs rkfd lac) O;fDr dks lkQ&lkQ
le> esa vk tk; fd blij dkSu&dkSu ls vkjksi yxk;s x;s gSaA
tgkW izFke n`'V;k vkjksi cgqr xaHkhj gks vkSj lfefr eglwl djs
fd &
¼d½ ,sls O;fDr dks fo|ky; dh lsok esa cus
jguk fo|ky; ds vuq'kklu vkSj lkekU; HkykbZ dh n`f"V ls
vfgrdj gksxkA
;k
¼[k½ laca) O;fDr fo|ky; vfHkys[k esa myV Qsj
vFkok rksM+&ejksM+ dj ldrk gS vFkok fo|ky; dh laifRr ;k
lkt&leku dks vU; uqdlku igqapk ldrk gS] rks lfefr] fo'ks"k
ladYi ds }kjk ,sls O;fDr dks fuyafcr djus dk fofu'p; dj
ldsxkA
¼5½ ftl O;fDr ij dk;Zokgh pyk;h tk; mls
viu mij yxk;s x;s vkjksi] fu;e&11 ¼4½ ds v/khu vius
fuyacu ds ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj] fyf[kr :i ls fn;s tk;saxs vkSj
mls vkjksi i= izkfIr ds iUnzg fnuksa ds Hkhrj Li"Vhdj.k nsuk
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
gksxkA Li"Vhdj.k dh izkfIr dh rkjh[k ls ,d i[kokjs ds Hkhrj
lfefr dh cSBd cqyk;h tk;xh vkSj ftlds fy;s] gjsd lnL;
dks] jftLVªhd`r Mkd ;k fo'ks"k nwr }kjk iwjs nl fnuksa dh
uksfVl nh tk;sxhA bl cSBd esa orZeku lnL;ksa dh dqy la[;k
dh nks&frgkbZ lnL;ksa dk dksje gksxkA ;fn iz/kkuk/;kid ;k
lfefr esa f'k{kd ;k izfrfuf/k Lo;a vkjksi ls lac) gks rks og
,slh cSBd esa mifLFkr ugha jgsxkA
¼6½ v/;{k@lfpo] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ]
iVuk dh lgefr ds fcuk dksbZ iz/kkuk/;kid@f'k{kd rhu eghus
ls vf/kd vof/k ds fy;s fuyafcr u fd;k tk;sxkA iz/kkuk/;kid
ds ekeys esa v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ dh vuqefr ds
fcuk fuyacu vkns'k ykxw ugha gksxkA fuyacu dh vof/k esa mls
thou fuokZg HkRrk tks mlds ekfld osru thou ;kiu HkRrk
lfgr dk vk/kk gksxkA
¼7½ lac) O;fDr ds Li"Vhdj.k ij lE;d
fopkj djus vkSj vuqjks/k fd;s tkus ij mls lquokbZ dk volj
nsus ds ckn] lfefr] fu;e 13 esa fofuZfn"V dksbZ cM+k naM nsus ;k
vkjksiksa ls foeqDr djus dk fofu'p; dj ldsxkA vfHk;qDr ds
vkjksiksa ls foeqDr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fuyacu dh vof/k]
drZO;LFk vof/k ekuh tk;xh vkSj ml vof/k dk iwjk osru vkSj
HkRrk fn;k tk;xkA ;fn lfefr] cM+s naMksa esa ls dksbZ naM nsus
dk fofu'p; djs rks ml vof/k esa fuyacu dh vof/k drZO;LFk
ugha ekuh tk;sxhA
¼8½ ,sls lHkh ekeys esa] ftuesa lfefr cM+s
naMksa esa ls dksbZ naM nsus dk fofu'p; djs] ,slk naM
okLro esa dk;kZfUor fd;s tkus ds igys dk;Zokgh ds lHkh
vfHkys[k vkSj O;k[;kRed vxzi= fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk
cksMZ ds ikl Hksts tk;saxsA lfefr ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr
O;fDr 60 fnuksa ds Hkhrj v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ
ds ikl vihy dj ldsxk ,oa v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk
cksMZ lHkh i{kksa dks lqudj viuk fu.kZ; nsaxsA cksMZ vFkok
cksMZ ds v/;{k ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr O;fDr vkns'k fuxZr
gksus dh frfFk ls 60 fnuksa ds vUnj fo'ks"k funs'kd]
ek/;fed f'k{kk ds ikl vihy nk;j dj ldsxkA fo'ks"k
funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk lHkh i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk iw.kZ
ekSdk nsdj viuk fu.kZ; nsaxsA"(Emphasis Supplied)
5. The order dated 26.12.2024 contained in Memo
No.187 passed by the Special Secretary (Secondary Education),
Education Department cum Appellate Authority is fit to be set-
aside and quashed.
6. Per contra, Mr. S. K. Pandey tendered his
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
appearance on behalf of the respondent no.14 and submitted that
there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Managing
Committee, which was illegally interfered by the Chairman of
the Board. The Appellate Authority after discussing the entire
case of the petitioners, as well as, the respondent no.14 and the
action taken by the Managing Committee and the Chairman of
the Board has passed a reasoned order in accordance with the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Trigun Chand
Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2019 7 SCC
513, wherein it has been held that in respect of the private
institutions, where teachers are aggrieved by the action of the
Managing Committee, the remedy lies before the Civil Court,
having jurisdiction by filing civil suit. Learned counsel further
submitted that the petitioners are facing prosecution for having
stolen away the entire documents of the Managing Committee,
regarding which Itarhi P.S. Case No. 96 of 2022 has been
lodged. However, he informs that final form has been submitted
and subsequently a criminal case has also been lodged against
the respondent no.14 bearing Itarhi P.S. Case No.128 of 2023
and reference of which is contained in Memo No.247 dated
07.06.2023. However, he submits that the investigation is still
going on and as a result of the expiry of the period, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
respondent no.14 is not a member of the Managing Committee
as on date.
7. Mr. Md. Syed Ahmad has tendered his
appearance on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and
based on the instruction as well as records, he informs that the
decision of the Managing Committee dated 09.07.2022 was not
approved by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board.
Till the action is not taken in accordance with sub-rule (8) of the
Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015, the petitioners were permitted to
attend the school by interfering with the major punishment of
dismissal which was passed against the petitioners by the
Managing Committee. Against the said decision, he submitted
that the Managing Committee preferred appeal before the
Secretary of the Board. He further submitted that so far as,
legality or challenge to the order dated 26.12.2024 is concerned,
the same is subject matter in the present writ petition. He
emphatically submitted that it is well settled law that before any
action is taken in respect of dismissal or termination of an
employee or even those who are engaged on contractual basis or
ad hoc or in case they are working as guest employees, the
mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the
procedures prescribed therein are required to be followed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the order
passed by the Appellate Authority contained in Memo No.187
dated 26.12.2024 and has supported the argument made on
behalf of the respondent no.14.
9. Heard the parties.
10. Having considered the rival submissions made
on behalf of the parties, as well as, having taken note of the
conditions as laid down in Rule 13(2), of the Rules, 2015, which
for proper adjudication of the writ petition is reproduced
hereinafter:
"Rule 13(2) (a) speaks about Minor
Punishment-Admonition/ Censor and Rule 13 (2) (b)
speaks about Major Punishment - (i) Reduction in
Rank (ii) Removal from service (iii) Dismissal."
11. It appears from the very perusal of the Rule
13(2) (b) of the Rules, 2015, which has been framed under
Section 20(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981, as
per the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
having statutory force. The Impugned Order has been passed by
the Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education
Department, Government of Bihar who has been appointed as
per the provision of Rules 2015, the order passed by such
authority can only be held to be quasi judicial order amenable
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners
are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Managing Committee
of the school, in so far as not following the prescribed procedure
as laid down under Rule 13(2)(b) of the Rules, 2015 before
inflicting the punishment of dismissal. The Managing
Committee has also instituted a criminal case bearing Itarhi P.S.
Case No.96 of 2024 allegedly that the petitioner has taken away
the entire documents of the Managing Committee and the said
case is pending before the competent Court. It is well settled
that disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are two
different proceedings as held in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat
Gold Mines Ltd., reported in, (1999) 3 SCC 679.
12. In above background, I find that so far as the
legality of the action taken by the Managing Committee is
concerned, it has been contended on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit
Shiksha Board that the provision of Rule 13 (2) (b) of the
Rules, 2015 is in fact a complete code. The procedure as
prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India are
mandatorily required to be followed. The petitioner has been
dismissed from service without holding any proper enquiry and
without affording opportunity in accordance with law.
13. I find that the Appellate Authority has not taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
into consideration, while considering the case of Trigun
Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2019)
7 SCC 513 at the relevant time, the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha
Board Act, 1981 has been amended vide notification dated
13.02.2015, which prescribes for the manner in which
Disciplinary Action has to be taken in Section 13 of the
Amended Act as has been referred hereinabove.
14. In that view, I find that the law laid down by the
Apex Court in case of Trigun Chand Thakur (Supra) will
not govern the case of the petitioner and as such the order
passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the
petitioner relying on the said decision of the Apex Court
directing the petitioner that dispute in question against the
action of the Managing Committee, the remedy lies before the
Competent Civil Court is misconceived.
15. Section 15 of the Amended Act, 2015 provides
that teachers or Managing Committee, if aggrieved, by any of
the decision passed by the Chairman of the Sanskrit Shiksha
Board, the remedy lies before the Special Director, Secondary
Education within a period of sixty days. The petitioner had filed
appeal within time. The Appellate Authority has erred by taking
into consideration the order passed in Trigun Chand Thakur
Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025
(Supra) while rejecting the appeal. The remedy lies before the
Appellate Authority after coming into force of the Amended
Act, 2015.
16. In light of the above observation, the Special
Secretary must proceed to exercise its jurisdiction to resolve the
dispute between the petitioner and the Managing Committee on
the basis of the records available before it.
17. The impugned order contained in Memo No.
187 dated 26.12.2024 is modified to the above extent.
18. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Mantreshwar
Ashishsingh
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 18.02.2025
Transmission Date N.A.
