Allowed¶46

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Education

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2026WPC/2392/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC (Deepak Roshan, J., 05.01.2026), W.P. (S) 2392/2017: termination of Intermediate Trained Teacher quashed — no departmental proceeding despite Rule 8(2)(ii) major penalty under Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994; two qualifications within one year not barred absent specific regulation (Kuldeep Kumar Pathak, (2016) 3 SCC 521); reinstatement with salary for period worked; fresh disciplinary action permitted per natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; impugned termination order dated 01.04.2017 quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to be reinstated in service forthwith; petitioner to be paid salary for the period he worked; pending I.A., if any, closed. ¶46

Sanjay Kumar Pandey Vs Education — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the termination of the petitioner's services is bad in law because no departmental proceeding was initiated, although termination is a major penalty under Rule 8(2)(ii) of the Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994. +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

Termination of service is a major penalty under Rule 8(2)(ii) of the Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994 adopted by Jharkhand on 16.02.2001, and the Rules themselves provide for a departmental proceeding, which was not done in the instant case; the termination is therefore unsustainable on this count.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

An order of termination having civil consequences must be passed only after giving proper opportunity; this proposition is settled law (no more res integra).

¶36

Key takeaways

The marks-discrepancy ground fails: it is evident from the records that on 22.09.2016 itself the petitioner replied that he had obtained 533 marks in Madhyama (equivalent to matriculation), and no wrong was committed in obtaining appointment since both Matriculation and Madhyama certificates were enclosed in the application form.ratio¶38
Acquiring two degrees simultaneously and/or within a period of one year is not prohibited unless there is a specific regulation, in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's order in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (2016) 3 SCC 521; accordingly, the respondents produced no regulation prohibiting simultaneous appearance in two examinations.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — termination of Intermediate Trained Teacher, Primary School, Sringarbera, Bermo (order dated 01.04.2017, Memo No.1405) — grounds: matriculation marks shown as 364 in application against 533 in database, and only one year between Madhyama (1990) and Intermediate (1991). Held: (i) termination is a major penalty under Rule 8(2)(ii) of the Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994 (adopted by Jharkhand on 16.02.2001) and could not be imposed without a regular departmental proceeding, which was never initiated; (ii) an order having civil consequences must follow proper opportunity; (iii) acquiring two qualifications simultaneously/within one year is not prohibited absent a specific regulation, applying Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 521; (iv) the marks objection was met by the petitioner's reply of 22.09.2016 (533 marks in Madhyama, equivalent to matriculation, both certificates enclosed). Termination quashed; reinstatement directed forthwith with salary for the period worked; respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with the 1994 Rules and principles of natural justice.

¶1

2026:JHHC:66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 2392 of 2017

¶4

Sanjay Kumar Pandey, son of Shri Ramchandra Pandey, resident of Village- Gundri, P.O.-Arkhango, P.S.-Dhanwar, District-Bokaro.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, having office at MDI Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and DistrictRanchi.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Bokaro, having office at P.O. & P.S.Bokaro, District-Bokaro.

¶8

The District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro, having office at Campus of Middle School, S.B.S., Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Chas, District-Bokaro. ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Akanksha Priya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, S.C.-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C. to S.C.-V

¶12

21/Dated:-05.01.2026

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the office order contained in Memo No.1405 dated 01.04.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondent; whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher, Primary School, Sringarbera, Bermo, District Bokaro with a further direction to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner.

¶15

The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the salary from 06.01.2016 to 01.04.2017 during which the petitioner has discharged the duty on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher of the concerned school.

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:66

¶18

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the petitioner passed matriculation from High School, Kubari in the district of Giridih in 1988. He also passed his Madhyama in 1990, which is equivalent to matriculation, from Bihar Sanskrit Education Board, Patna, as an independent candidate. Thereafter, the petitioner did his Intermediate in 1991.

¶19

In 1994, Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceeding) Rules, 1994 was framed, which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Rule 8(2)(ii) thereof, provides that the penalty upon a teacher cannot be imposed without holding a regular departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the petitioner did his graduation with Sanskrit Honours in 1996.

¶20

4. Thereafter, on 29.11.2002, the petitioner was selected as Para Teacher by Village Education Committee, Primary School, Shershinga. On 31.08.2009, the petitioner was granted the certificate of Diploma in Education by the IGNOU. After the petitioner became successful in Jharkhand Teachers' Eligibility Test (J-TET), he was granted J-TET certificate on 28.05.2013. Thereafter, the competent authority granted the certificate to the effect that the petitioner has been working as Para Teacher since 29.11.2002 and there was no break in his service. A certificate was granted by Bihar Sanskrit Education Board to the effect that the petitioner passed his Madhyama examination, as an independent student ( Swatrantra Chhatra ) on 19.06.2015.

¶21

5. An Advertisement No. 01/2015-16 was issued by the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro for appointment on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher in the primary schools for Classes 1 to 5. The petitioner, eligible in all respects, as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement, applied. Finally, the candidature of the petitioner was considered and appointment letter was issued to him on 01.01.2016. As required, the petitioner submitted his resignation

¶22

¶23

2026:JHHC:66

¶24

on the post of Para Teacher on 05.01.2016. Thereafter the petitioner joined in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro on the post of Intermediate Trained Teacher on 06.01.2016. Petitioner was deputed for training from 27.01.2016 to 02.02.2016. The petitioner was finally posted in Primary School, Sringarbera, Bermo in the district of Bokaro on 28.02.2016.

¶25

6. Thereafter, when the petitioner served almost nine months, an explanation was sought for. The defect, which was pointed out is “in the application, the total marks in matriculation has been shown as 364 whereas in the Database it is 533" . On 22.09.2016, the petitioner submitted his reply stating inter alia that he has obtained 533 marks in Madhyama (matriculation) and there was no discrepancy. Thereafter, on 03.12.2016 another explanation was sought from the petitioner stating inter alia that this petitioner did his Matric (Madhyama) in the year 1990; whereas he passed Intermediate in the year 1991; that the duration in between this qualification is only one year, which is not as per the Rule. Again, the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.12.2016 stating inter alia that there was no wrong committed in getting the appointment by this petitioner, as the petitioner has enclosed both the certificates of Matriculation and Madhyama (equivalent to Matriculation) in the application form. For the reasons best known to the respondent, third explanation was sought from the petitioner repeating the same thing, which was already there in the letter dated 03.12.2016. The petitioner being duty bound, again submitted his reply. Finally, by the impugned office order dated 01.04.2017, the respondent no. 3 has terminated the services of the petitioner, with a further direction to lodge an FIR against him.

¶26

7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before terminating the service of the petitioner, no departmental proceeding has been initiated by the concerned

¶27

¶28

2026:JHHC:66

¶29

respondents. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order and submits that the ground for dismissal is that within a period of one year, petitioner has procured two academic qualifications namely Matriculation and Madhyama which as per the respondents is not as per the rules. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 521 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there is no regulation to the effect that a candidate cannot do two courses at the same time; then such ground cannot be taken by the authorities.

¶30

8. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994 adopted by Jharkhand on 16.02.2001 and straightaway he draws attention towards Rule 8 (2)(ii) and submits that since it is a major penalty of terminating the services of the petitioner, therefore, the respondents would have initiated a departmental proceeding; therefore, the impugned order is bad in law on two counts:

¶31

(I) No departmental proceeding has been initiated.

¶32

(II) Since there is no regulation to the effect that simultaneous appearance in two examinations is prohibited, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

¶33

9. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and submits that the petitioner had applied under matriculation certificate and keeping in mind the matriculation marks, he could not have been selected and apart from the ground of difference of one year taken in the impugned order, the other ground is also with regard to securing lesser marks in matriculation. However, learned counsel could not produce any regulation to the effect that simultaneous appearance in two examinations is prohibited and is contrary to any regulation.

¶34

¶35

2026:JHHC:66

¶36

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, as per Rule-8(2)(ii) of the Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994 adopted by Jharkhand on 16.02.2001, termination of service is a major penalty and the rules itself provides for a departmental proceeding which has not been done in the instant case. Furthermore, the order of termination is having civil consequences and the law is no more res integra that any order having civil consequences must be passed after giving proper opportunity.

¶37

11. The Respondents have also contended that the petitioner had applied under matriculation certificate and keeping in mind the matriculation marks, he could not have been selected as he secured lesser marks in matriculation.

¶38

In this regard, it is evident from records that on 22.09.2016 itself, the petitioner submitted his reply stating inter alia that he has obtained 533 marks in Madhyama (equivalent to matriculation). Further, there was no wrong committed in getting the appointment by this petitioner, as the petitioner has enclosed both the certificates of Matriculation and Madhyama (equivalent to Matriculation) in the application form.

¶39

12. So far as acquiring two degrees simultaneously and/or within a period of one year is concerned; it is also not prohibited unless there is a specific regulation in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak (Supra) . For brevity, para 7 and 8 is extracted hereinbelow:

¶40

“ 7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was "contrary to the Regulations". However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire

¶41

¶42

2026:JHHC:66

¶43

foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous.

¶44

8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant's intermediate examination and result thereof was not in question before the U.P. Board. No illegality in the admission in that class has been pointed out by the respondents. The alleged charge of simultaneously appearing in two examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect to Class X and equivalent examination which did not relate to admission in intermediate course. The only provision for cancelling the said admission is contained in Regulation 1 of Chapter VI-B. It details the procedure for passing the order of punishment cancelling intermediate results and, inter alia, prescribes that a committee consisting of three different members is to be constituted and entrusted with the responsibility of looking into and disposing of cases relating to unfair means and award appropriate penalty as specified in the Regulations itself. However, there is no allegation of any unfair means adopted by the appellant in the instant case and, therefore, that Regulation has no applicability. Even otherwise, no such committee was constituted. Therefore, having taken admission in intermediate on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board, which was recognised, and not on the basis of the result of Class X of the U.P. Board, the appellant derived no advantage from his examination of the U.P. Board while seeking admission in intermediate course. Thus, from any angle the matter is to be looked into, the impugned orders dated 20-4-2011 and 10-5-2011 passed by the respondents are null and void, apart from the fact that they are in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

¶45

Thus, none of the grounds taken in the impugned order is sustainable in the eye of law and deserves interference.

¶46

13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, the instant application is allowed and the impugned order of termination dated 01.04.2017 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. The petitioner shall also be paid the salary for the period he worked.

¶47

However, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised following principles of natural justice and as per the provisions of Bihar State Nationalised Primary Teachers (Transfer and Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1994 adopted by Jharkhand on 16.02.2001.

¶48

14. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶49

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶50

JANUARY 5, 2026 vikas/uploaded 20.01.2026

¶51

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Bhuia Alias Bhola Bhuiya Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Toppo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Prashad Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jay Prakash Sharma Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organization Represented Thro Its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Anjani Kumar Keshri Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Co. Operative Department

Rahul Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Pr Secretary Personnel Admin Reforms and Rajbhasha