Patna High Court
Sudha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2025
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21190 of 2018
======================================================
Sudha Kumari, Wife of Bimal Sah, Daughter of Shiv Shanker Sah, Residing
at Lohiyanagar Chowk, Ward No. 8, Supaul, P.S. + District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
5. The District Programme Officer (Est.), Supaul, District- Supaul.
6. The Block Education Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
7. The Block Development Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Loukaha, Block and District- Supaul.
9. The Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat of Loukaha, Block and District -
Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GP-27
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC
to GP-27 for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
initially the writ application was filed seeking quashing of the
memo no. 1163 dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure-7) issued under the
signature of the District Education Officer, Supaul addressed to the
Block Development Officer-cum-Member Secretary, Block
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
2/7
Education Employment Unit, Loukaha whereby it was directed to
terminate the services of the petitioner in light of the order passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014 and to recover the salary given to
the petitioner by instituting a case under the Public Demand
Recovery Act. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the letter
dated 17.09.2018 issued by the District Officer, Supaul, the
services of the petitioner were terminated by memo no. 17 dated
31.10.2018
issued by the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Member
Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Unit, Gram Panchayat,
Loukaha, Supaul (Annexure-P/8).
3. It is next submitted that order dated 31.10.2018 has
been challenged by way of filing I.A. No. 01 of 2025.
4. I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is allowed for consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher on 15.02.2007 and
thereafter was continuously discharging her duty when an FIR
came to be instituted against her and others bearing Supual P.S.
Case No. 508 of 2018 alleging therein that the petitioner at the
time of seeking appointment had interpolated her marks in the
marksheet of Intermediate i.e. petitioner had obtained 55% but at
the time of seeking appointment, the certificate of Intermediate
which was submitted by her recorded her percentage as 64%.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
the aforesaid FIR was instituted in pursuance of the order passed
by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014. It is next submitted
that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of 2014 had passed an order
giving amnesty to those teachers who had sought appointment
based on forged and fabricated certificate to tender their
resignation. The order recorded that if the teachers, who have
sought appointment based on forged and fabricated certificate, do
not give resignation within the amnesty period in that event the
Vigilance was directed to institute an FIR and investigate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner did not resign during the period of amnesty for the
reason that she had not obtained her appointment as Panchayat
Teacher based on forged and fabricated certificate. It is further
submitted that merely because an FIR came to be instituted against
the petitioner with the aforesaid allegation that in itself did not
entitle the authorities to terminate the services of the petitioner
without issuing any show cause or seeking her explanation. It is
next submitted that termination order of the petitioner was passed
based on an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance behind her back
without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain her side
of the case. It is submitted that no doubt, this Court in C.W.J.C.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
No. 15459 of 2014 had given amnesty to teachers to resign
voluntarily, who had sought appointment, based on forged and
fabricated certificate and if the teacher did not resign within the
period of amnesty in that event the Vigilance was directed to hold
an inquiry and institute an FIR but then it is submitted that since
the petitioner had not obtained her appointment as Panchayat
Teacher based on forged and fabricated document, hence, the
petitioner in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15459 of
2014 did not resign but then her services came to be terminated by
the order impugned as annexed in I.A. No. 01 of 2025 on the
ground that the Vigilance had instituted an FIR with the aforesaid
allegation.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
allegations are in realm of allegations and the FIR still has to stand
the scrutiny of a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction. It is
further submitted that in the trial, if the prosecution is not able to
prove its case, in that event what will happen, as such, the
authority before terminating the services of the petitioner ought to
have issued a show cause seeking her explanation and if the
authorities were not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the
petitioner, in that event, a departmental proceeding ought to have
been initiated. Learned counsel fairly submits that rule of strict
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
evidence does not apply in a departmental proceeding as it is based
on preponderance of probabilities but then even to prove that
preponderance of probabilities exist for taking a decision, a
proceeding is a must. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
order impugned, it would manifest that the same does not even
remotely suggest that any show cause was given to the petitioner
before terminating her services rather based on the direction of the
District Education Officer, the Employment Unit terminated the
services of the petitioner on the ground that an FIR has been
instituted against her.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is
not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that before terminating the
services of the petitioner, no show cause was issued to her seeking
her explanation rather the services of the petitioner were
terminated on the ground that an FIR has been instituted against
her. Learned counsel for the State further submits that there is an
allegation against the petitioner that she had interpolated her
marksheet of Intermediate.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner vehemently rebuts the said submissions of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State that petitioner had
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
interpolated her marksheet of Intermediate and submits that had an
opportunity been given to the petitioner to explain her side of the
case before terminating her services, perhaps the FIR would not
have been instituted as the petitioner would have been in a position
to satisfy the authorities but then in absence of any opportunity of
hearing, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated in
complete breach of the principles of natural justice, as such, the
order impugned cannot be countenanced. Learned counsel for the
petitioner next submits that similarly situated person Lalan Kumar
Paswan had approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15689 of
2019 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
02.08.2019 on the ground that services of the petitioner were
terminated in complete breach of the principles of natural justice
i.e. without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing.
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
order contained in memo no. 1163 dated 17.09.2018 passed by the
District Education Officer, Supaul and the order contained in
memo no. 17 dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Panchayat Secretary-
cum-Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Unit,
Gram Panchayat, Loukaha, Supaul whereby services of the
petitioner has been terminated are hereby quashed and the
authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21190 of 2018 dt.27-01-2025
12. Accordingly, the instant writ application is allowed.
13. However, it is made clear that quashing of the order
of termination will not preclude the respondent authorities from
proceeding against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.
14. It is further made clear that petitioner shall not be
entitled to any salary for the period she has not worked unless a
decision with regard to the validity of her appointment, in
accordance with law, is not taken. The payment of salary of the
petitioner for the period she has not worked shall abide by the final
outcome of the inquiry to be made by the respondent authorities
with regard to her appointment.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 27.01.2025
Transmission Date
