Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Kamlesh Kumar on 10 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.287 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1986 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Chief Secretary State of Bihar.
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, Saran.
10. The District Programme Officer (Estb.) Saran.
11. The District Programme Officer (Literacy) Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sitav Ram, R/o Village Pratappur, P.O. Pratappur, P.S.
Dariyapur, Distt. Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 404 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2131 of 2021
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Mass Education-Cum-Additional Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra, District-Saran at Chapra,
District-Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Programme Officer (Llteracy), Saran at Chapra, District-Saran
at Chapra,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
2/15
6. The Headmaster, Dalan Singh High School (10 Plus 2), Manjhi, Block-
Manjhi, District-Saran at Chapra,
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Satish Kumar Singh Son of Late Keshav Prasad Singh Resident of Village-
Parsa Mathura, P.O. and P.S. Parsa, District-Saran at Chapra, Presently
residing at Behind of Ganga Singh College, Hem Chandra Mitra Road, P.O.
Sahebganj, P.S. Chapra Town, District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 287 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. S.S. Prasad, S.C. 8
Mr. Anil Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 8
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 404 of 2022)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Apurva Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Raj Rashmi Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-02-2025
Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 287 of
2022 and I.A. No. 02 of 2022 in L.P.A. No. 404 of
2022 :-
Mr. P.K. Shahi, the learned Advocate General for
the appellants presses I.A. Nos. 01 of 2022 & 02 of 2022
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
3/15
in L.P.A. Nos. 287 of 2022 & 404 of 2022 respectively
for condoning the delay of 56 days and 81 days in
preferring the appeals.
2. For the reasons stated in the applications, the
delay of aforementioned days in preferring the appeals
are condoned.
3. Both the afore-noted interlocutory
applications stand allowed.
Re. L.P.A. Nos. 287 of 2022 & 404 of
2022:-
4. Both the appeals have been taken up
together and are being disposed off by this common
judgment.
5. The State of Bihar, in the past, had
promulgated Non-Formal Education Programme where
Supervisors and Instructors were engaged. With the
abandoning of the programme, the Supervisors and
Instructors became jobless. Later, by the orders of this
Court, the Supervisors, because they were lesser in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
4/15
number, were accommodated against various
Government posts and their services were regularized.
Since the Instructors were not accommodated anywhere,
who were in large number, they came before this Court
vide C.W.J.C. No. 8418 of 2010 (Sheo Bhajan
Prasad Diwakar and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and
Ors.) where a direction was issued for considering their
cases for regularization/appointment on the same terms
as had been done for the Supervisors associated with the
same programme i.e. Non-Formal Education Programme.
6. The aforenoted direction passed by the
learned Single Judge was upheld in L.P.A. No. 1489 of
2011, but it was observed that with respect to
Instructors, only those persons be accommodated who
would be found to be working for three years continuously
at the time when the Non-Formal Education Scheme was
abolished. The Instructors never insisted on Class-III
posts and, therefore, they could be taken in service even
on Class-IV posts as per the vacancies available in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
5/15
different departments. The reason for this was that such
privilege could not be given to a person who would have
worked for a short period and then have left the work.
They would then have no legitimate claim in that regard.
7. Against the aforenoted direction of the
Division Bench of this Court, referred to above, the State
of Bihar had preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 32079 of
2015, which too was dismissed vide order dated
26.02.2016
with an observation that the relief would only
be granted to such of the Instructors who had approached
either the High Court or the Supreme Court till
26.02.2016.
8. Thereafter, the State resolved to and
proceeded with the exercise of regularizing/appointing the
erstwhile Instructors with the condition that they should
have approached either the High Court or the Supreme
Court on or before 26.02.2016; they must have worked
for at least three years continuously before the abolition
of the Scheme; that they should be less than sixty years
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
of age; they should have minimum qualification of
Matriculation or equivalent examination and that the
panel so prepared would be valid for five years from
27.04.2017.
9. For effecting the process, District Level
Committees were constituted in each of the 38 districts of
the State of Bihar to sort out eligible Instructors who
could be given appointment on Class-III or Class-IV
posts. The exercise was gigantic because of the sheer
number of Instructors who had applied. Nonetheless,
appointments were made, the respondents in both the
appeals being the beneficiaries of such appointments.
10. In clause 10 of the appointment letter to
the respondents, it was clearly stated that if any
information/fact provided by the applicant would be found
to be false/misleading in future, their services then would
be terminated.
11. With respect to the respondents, there was
a complaint received later that their self-certification of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
having worked continuously for three years prior to
abandoning of the Non-Formal Education Project, was
false and not based on records, leading to an inquiry in
which it was found that the accusation against the
respondents were correct.
12. They were asked to explain to which they
submitted the details of payment shown in the bank pass-
books. This information was also found to be incorrect.
13. In the inquiry, except for a bald statement
made by the respondents that they had worked
continuously for three years and had obtained
remuneration in their respective bank accounts, no other
evidence was furnished and the pass-book entries could
not be verified as the records were not available in the
concerned banks.
14. As such, their services were terminated.
15. They approached this Court vide C.W.J.C.
Nos. 1986 of 2021 and 2131 of 2021 respectively,
wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
once the respondents were regularized, their
appointments could not have been cancelled without prior
opportunity to them in a domestic proceeding.
16. Relying on several Supreme Court
decisions that even temporary employees would be
entitled for domestic inquiry if the allegations are made
against such employees before terminating their services,
the orders terminating the services of respondents were
set aside.
17. It was also observed by the learned Single
Judge that the respondents would be entitled to monetary
benefits during the intervening period from the date of
termination till their reinstatement; the benefits would be
calculated and disbursed within a period of three months.
18. However, by the aforenoted judgments,
the State was given the liberty to initiate inquiry against
the respondents for furnishing false information within a
period of three months from the date of the order.
19. The appeals were preferred against the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
aforenoted judgments in favour of the respondents on the
ground that one of the conditions for appointment of the
respondents was that they should have worked
continuously for three years prior to the project having
been stopped. The information provided by the
respondents with respect to this criteria was found to be
incorrect. It was argued that there was no necessity of
initiating any departmental proceeding against the
respondents as it would have been an empty formality.
20. The Courts have discarded the principle of
natural justice when satisfied that the outcome of the
case would not have been different, had the principle of
natural justice been fully observed.
21. The present cases, the State has argued,
would fall under this category where even after an
inquiry, the result would have been the same.
22. The other ground of challenge was that
allowing the respondents the monetary benefits from the
date of termination till reinstatement would incur
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
approximately Rs. 12,00,000/- for each of the
respondents to the State exchequer and ultimately it
would amount to making the respondents win even after
furnishing false and fabricated evidence to procure the
appointments. It would also lead to a groundswell of the
opinion that false information by the candidates could be
furnished with impunity.
23. During the course of argument, it was
further brought to the notice of the Court that in view of
the liberty granted to the State to initiate inquiry against
the respondents, an inquiry was initiated under the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 2005 against the respondents. They
were charge-sheeted and inquiry officers and presenting
officers were appointed. The respondents, instead of
replying to the charge memo, questioned the very
initiation of departmental proceeding by filing
representations.
24. The inquiry report was submitted which
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
indicated that as per the payment register and other
documents available in the department, the respondents
were not paid money for working for three continuous
years as claimed by them. A reasoned order thereafter
was passed by which the recommendation made in favour
of the respondents was cancelled and a resolve was
expressed for taking appropriate steps for recovering the
salary paid to the respondents from the date of
appointment to the date of dismissal.
25. We have examined the issue from all
angles. The claim of the respondents have been negated
on the prime ground that they could not prove that they
had continuously worked for three years prior to the
stopping of the project. In fact, it should have had been
the State which had regularized the services of the
respondents to check up its own records with respect to
the payment register. In such context, to a large extent,
the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge could
not have been faulted on account of the respondents not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
having been put to the rigors of departmental proceeding.
Nonetheless, it also cannot be lost sight of that the right
to be paid by way of salary springs from a legal right to
validly hold the post for which salaries are claimed. It is a
right consequential to a valid appointment to such post.
26. Refer to Rita Mishra & Ors. vs.
Director, Primary Education Bihar & Ors. AIR
1988 Patna 26(FB) and The State of Bihar & Ors.
vs. Devendra Sharma (2020) 15 SCC 466.
27. In Chairman Board of Mining
Examination and Chief Inspector Mines & Anr. Vs.
Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, the Supreme Court had
observed very pithily that "natural justice is no unruly
horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial cure - all. If
fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man
proceeded against, the form, the features and the
fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being
conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each
situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without
reference to the administrative realities and other factors
of a given case can be exasperating. One can neither be
finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this
jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt - that is
the conscience of the matter".
28. Now that one part of the judgment of
putting the respondents to domestic inquiry was followed
by the State/appellant, the question remains only with
respect to payment for the period between the
termination and the reinstatement for the purposes of
holding inquiry.
29. We are of the considered view that such a
direction for payment of salary for such period to the
respondents ought not to have been directed by the
learned Single Judge.
30. We, therefore, set aside the aforenoted
direction with respect to payment of salary to be
calculated from the period of termination till the period of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
their reinstatement for conducting inquiry against them.
31. The judgments impugned are modified to
the extent indicated above.
32. There would be no obligation on the State
to make any payment to the respondents.
33. However, the resolve to recover the salary
for the entire period that the respondents were in service
would not be in tune with law. When pointed out, the
learned Advocate General gave an undertaking that such
recovery shall not be ordered.
34. However to be on the fair side of the
respondents, we further direct in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in State Of Punjab & Ors vs Rafiq
Masih (White Washer) & Ors. 2015 (4) SCC 334
and High Court of Punjab & Haryana & Ors. vs.
Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 , the State would
not be entitled to recover the salary of the respondents
which have been paid to them till the time they were
terminated from service.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.287 of 2022 dt.10-02-2025
35. Both the appeals are allowed to the extent
indicated above.
36. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also
stands disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sauravkrsinha/
Krishna-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
