The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a Block Teacher. The Court declined interference at the stage but ordered the trial to conclude within six months
Writ application disposed; trial directed to conclude within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13948 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Nandan Kumar Chandan S/O Sri Shiv Kumar Sah R/O Village- Sahaidhanesh, P.O.- Saraidhanesh, P.S.- Sahadai Buzurg, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary Education Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 4. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Vaishali 5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahnar, Vaishali 8. The Block Development Officer, Sahdai Buzurg, Vaishali 9. The Block Education Officer, Sahadaibuzurg, Vaishali 10. The Block Education Officer, Desari, Vaishali 11. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Sahdai Buzurg, Vaishali 12. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Sahdai Buzurg, Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jaishankar Barnwal Sc1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
2 17-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of dismissal as a Block Teacher dated 5.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.13948 of 2012 (2) dt.17-08-2012
2 / 4
the order issued by the Block Education Extension Officer is without jurisdiction. The Block Education Officer alone was competent to do so and that too after approval of the Block Appointment Committee. The mere institution of a criminal case cannot be sufficient justification to dispense with the service without holding any departmental enquiry and arriving at a finding of guilt.
Counsel for the State submits that the Court must notice the substance of the impugned order issued after an emergent sitting of the Block Education Appointment Committee necessitated by the facts of the case. If the order was in accordance with law in its origin, the mere fact that it may have been signed by the Block Education Extension Officer the Court may not interfere with it in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction more particularly in the facts of the case.
An F.I.R. is stated to have been lodged by a girl student of Class-VIII on 4.12.2008 under Sections 342 and 354 of the Penal Code against the petitioner. He was stated to be a teacher in the institution. Of course, the petitioner alleges false implication and put forth his reasons for the same also. But the fact is charge sheet has already been submitted against him in the criminal case. The proceedings of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal dated 21.1.2010 on the first application preferred by the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13948 of 2012 (2) dt.17-08-2012
3 / 4
adequately reflects the emergent situation that developed on the spot based on the allegations against the petitioner leading to an assembly of approximately 500 agitated villagers. The Court holds the same to be sufficient justification for dispensing with the enquiry in the nature of the allegations applying the analogy of Article 311 of the Constitution. This cannot be construed as any opinion and/or observation of the Court on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner which are yet to be proved. It has been noticed only for the limited purpose of the discretionary jurisdiction of the writ Court.
The Court declines any interference with the order of the dismissal at this stage. But if the allegations are not substantiated in the criminal trial and the petitioner makes an application for reinstatement, it shall have to be considered immediately in accordance with law in all its aspects.
The criminal case is stated to have been lodged on 4.12.2008. Investigation has already been concluded and charge sheet submitted. The petitioner is on bail. If he cooperates, the trial is directed to be concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Magistrate concerned. Counsel for the petitioner expresses an apprehension that his co-operation may be futile unless the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13948 of 2012 (2) dt.17-08-2012
4 / 4
prosecution does not co-operate.
Keeping in mind that the materials against the petitioner stand as merely allegations, he has lost his job, the Magistrate shall ensure that all coercive measures available to him in the law both against the prosecution witnesses and those required to produce the witnesses including under Section 350 Cr. P. C. are adequately utilized to ensure completion of the trial within the time fixed.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar/-
(Navin Sinha, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing a teacher despite allegations of misconduct.
Nandan Kumar Chandan
The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary Education Department, Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
