Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC10 Dec 2015CWJC/2877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary, challenged an order recommending disciplinary action against them led in an appeal by a respondent teacher. The Court declined interference, holding the order was a mere recommendation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; authorities directed to consider facts that the Panchayat Secretary had superannuated before passing any action.

Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2877 of 2010

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar Singh S/O Late Jiwach Prasad Sinha R/O Vill.- Pana Chapra, P.S.- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur At Present Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Mahima Gopinathpur, P.S.- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶4

Surendra Kumar S/O Late Ramdeo Singh R/O Vill.- Kusahi, P.S.- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur, Ex. Panchayat Secretary Of Gram Panchayat Mahima Gopinathpur, P.S.- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar

¶6

The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Director, Primary Education Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur

¶9

The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority Muzaffarpur through its Chairman

¶10

The Member District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur

¶11

The District Superintendent Of Education Muzaffarpur

¶12

The Block Education Officer Block- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶13

The Block Education Extension Officer Block- Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶14

Priyanka Kumari D/O Mahendra Paswan R/O Vill.+P.O.- Jehangirpur, P.S.Motipur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur

¶15

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh Mr. Navjot Yeshu For the State Mr. Ashok Kr. Pathak AC to GP XI

¶16

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date: 10-12-2015

¶18

Heard Mr. Rejendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Counsel for the petitioners and

¶19

the counsel for the State.

¶20

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶21

The petitioners herein are the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of

¶22

Gram Panchayat Mahima Gopinathpur, P.S. Motipur in the district of

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.2877 of 2010 dt.10-12-2015

¶24

2/3

¶25

Muzaffarpur. They are aggrieved by part of the order passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur in Case No.1262 of 2009 whereby while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Priyanka Kumari the Tribunal recommended for taking disciplinary action against the petitioners. The relevant part of the order aggrieved whereby the writ petition has been filed, is extracted herienbelow:-

¶26

“Atah Priyanka Kumari ke Aapati Patra men ullekhit aarop men gram panchayat raj Mahimagopinathpur ke dwara counseling se niyukti tak kiye gae karya ko nirastya kiya jata hai tatha upyukt shadyantra ke liye doshi panchayat sachiv, Surendra Kumar jo sevanirvit ho chuke hain ke virudh tatha mukhiya ke virudh kaanuni karwai ka nirdesh diya jata hai. Zila Padadhikari, Muzaffapur tatha Zila Siksha Padadhikari, Muzaffarpur is sambandh mei aavashayak pahal karengein.”

¶27

The contention of Mr. Singh is that the Tribunal misconstrued the facts and passed an order for taking action departmentally against the petitioners. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

¶28

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred that even during strike period the Panchayat Secretary (petitioner no. 2) functioned on the post. In paragraph 6 thereof, the respondent has stated that on the basis of the report submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer, Motipur it revealed that during strike period the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat discharged the duty. The Panchayat Secretary has already superannuated from service with effect from 30^th June, 2009.

¶29

On perusal of the order it appears that the Tribunal finding

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.2877 of 2010 dt.10-12-2015

¶31

3/3

¶32

culpability of guilt on the part of the petitioners, who constituted the Election Committee, recommended for such action. This is mere recommendation and not direction.

¶33

This Court considering the above without interfering with the said part of the order would dispose of the writ petition observing that if any action on the recommendation made in the impugned order is proposed by the respondents, particularly, the respondent District Magistrate, the facts which have been stated in the counter affidavit and noticed hereinabove, shall be kept in focus by him. The authority shall also bear in mind that the Panchayat Secretary has already superannuated from service way back in the year 2009.

¶34

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶35

HR/-

¶36

Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Singh and Anr. 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

Shweta Rani Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Information Commission Through Its Secretary Namely B.b.pandey and Ors.

Bulki Devi Vs The General Manager,north Central Railway,allahabad

Mangani Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Amrendra Kumar Ojha Vs the Life Insurance Corpn. of I

Umarendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.