Allowed

Dr.satya Deo Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Jul 2012CWJC/12692/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court set aside orders holding the petitioner absent from duty and treating the period as extraordinary leave. The Court found that no departmental proceeding was held, no discussion was made on the defence, and comments from the District Education Officer were missing, rendering the order non-speaking and arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 30.1.2012 and 31.1.2012 are set aside. A fresh reasoned order is required within three months. A personal hearing shall be provided if no departmental proceeding was earlier

Dr.satya Deo Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12692 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Dr.Satya Deo Pandey S/O Jagdish Pandey Resident Of Village - Hazisarai, P.S. Kako, Dist- Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary, Primary And Adult Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Education Officer, Gaya 5. The Principal , Ashok High School Paraiya, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 23-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.1.2012 holding that he was not present on duty from July, 2004 to 25.9.2006 denying salary for the period. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 31.1.2012 treating the aforesaid period as extraordinary leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence have been held against the petitioner at any time. The order dated 30.1.2012 itself notices that the petitioner had submitted an explanation. Comments had been called for from the District Education Officer which never came to be submitted. There is

¶2

Patna High Court CWJC No.12692 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶3

2 / 4

¶4

no discussion with regard to the nature of the defence taken by the petitioner and why it was not acceptable to the respondents. The consequential order is therefore also vitiated.

¶5

Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was absent from duty. He had been given an opportunity, the defence submitted by him has been considered. It was a question of fact for the subjective satisfaction of the authorities. The Court may not interfere.

¶6

If the respondents had arrived at a finding for unexplained absence to their satisfaction reflected in the impugned order, from July, 2004 to 25.9.2006, there may have been no occasion for the Court to interfere with the order dated 31.1.2012 which was otherwise but an order regularizing the period of absence so it may not constitute a break in service.

¶7

But the order dated 30.1.2012 reflects that the petitioner submitted his explanation for the absence. Comments were called for from the District Education Officer which never came to be submitted. Thereafter the respondents have rejected his application in a cryptic manner without any discussion what explanation was given by him and why it was not acceptable to them. What were the contents of the letter dated 29.1.2012 received from the District Education Officer, Gaya cum Departmental authority,

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.12692 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶9

3 / 4

¶10

is also not known as it finds no discussion.

¶11

If the finding dated 30.1.2012 is not the outcome of a regular departmental proceeding, the conclusions contained in it are not speaking in nature and do not display proper application of mind to the defence that may have been furnished by him. The Court is not concerned with whether the explanation was acceptable or not. The concern of the Court only is that the impugned order does not reflect adequate consideration and application of mind to the explanation that may have been furnished by the petitioner thus vitiating the order for an error in the decision making

¶12

process.

¶13

Reasons are the ultimate control on arbitrariness. A non speaking administrative order is itself arbitrary as it gives untrammeled power and jurisdiction to the authority with no legal boundaries or limitations.

¶14

The order dated 30.1.2012 and 31.1.2012 are accordingly set aside. Since the respondents already have all materials available with them, the explanation furnished by the petitioner and the comments of the District Education Officer, Gaya dated 29.1.2012, let a fresh reasoned and speaking order be passed in the manner discussed in the present order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent no. 3.

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.12692 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶16

4 / 4

¶17

Needless to state that the claims of the petitioner shall naturally remain dependent on such fresh order that may be passed by the respondents.

¶18

If the petitioner so requests he shall be provided a personal hearing also if no departmental proceeding was held earlier. The writ application is allowed.

¶19

P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)

Dr.satya Deo Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.satya Deo Pandey v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Harendra Singh Vs The Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Premchandra Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shashi Raman Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bhogendra Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Kumar Bimal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.