Kumari Satyabhama Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1831 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Kumari Satyabhama wife of Om Prakash, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.S.- Basantpur, P.S. Itarhi, District- Buxar.

¶4

Tarkeshwar Singh son of Late Singhashan Singh Resident of VillageGopalpur, P.S. Basantpur, P.S. - Itarhi, District- Buxar.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Director Administration-cum-Additional Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶12

The District Magistrate, Buxar.

¶13

The District Education Officer, Buxar.

¶14

The Block Education Officer, Ithari, Buxar.

¶15

The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through its Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

¶16

The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.

¶17

The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna.

¶18

The Managing Committee, Sri Saraswati Sumitra Sanskrit Prathmik cum Madhya Vidyalaya, Gopapur, Buxar.

¶19

Yoshoda Devi wife of Late Baban Singh, the then Secretary of Managing Committee of Sri Saraswati Sumitra Sanskrit Prathmik cum Madhya Vidyalaya, Gopapur, Buxar

¶20

... ... Respondent/s

¶21

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Government Pleader (12) For the BSSB : Mr. Md. Sayed Ahmad, Advocate For the Resp.14 : Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-02-2025 Heard Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 2/12

¶23

appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned Government Pleader (12) appearing on behalf of the State; Mr. Md. Sayed Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and Mr. S. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.14.

¶24

The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶25

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 26.12.2024 contained in Memo No. 187 issued under the signature of Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum-Appellate Authority, Bihar, whereby and where under, the order dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 2381 and order dated 19.01.2023 contained in Memo No. 59 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna has illegally and arbitrarily as well as mechanically been quashed in complete violation of Rule-13(8) and Rule-13.2 (8) of Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit School Teachers Service Conditions Rules, 2015.

¶26

(ii) For staying the operation of order dated order dated 26.12.2024 contained in Memo No. 187 issued under the signature of Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna-cum-Appellate Authority, Bihar, whereby and where under, the order dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 2381 and order dated 19.01.2023 contained in Memo No. 59 of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna, during the pendency of this writ application.

¶27

(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for directing and commanding the responsible Respondent Authorities to make payment of arrears of salary of the petitioners and also give all consequential and ancillary benefits, for which they are legally entitled to.

¶28

(iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the Petitioners art legally entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025

¶30

3/12

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being aggrieved by the order contained in Letter No.21/2022 dated 12.07.2022 passed by the then Secretary, Managing Committee without approval of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board, preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as per the provision of Rule 13 (8) of the Bihar State Non-Government Sanskrit School Teachers Service Conditions Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2015”). The Chairman of the Board interfered with the decision of the then Secretary, Managing Committee dated 09.07.2022 communicated vide Letter No.21/2022 dated 12.07.2022 and quashed the same vide order dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No. 2381. The Managing Committee aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman of the Board vide order dated 31.12.2022 contained in Memo No.2381, filed an appeal before the Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, in accordance with the provision of Sub-Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015. Referring to the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority contained in Memo no.187 dated 26.12.2024, learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Authority has not taken note of the fact that at the relevant time when the order was passed, he must have taken into account the order dated

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 4/12

¶33

08.08.2024 passed in CWJC No.5665 of 2013 (Rakesh Chandra Jha and Anr Vs. The Bihar Sanskirt Siksha Board and Ors) , as well as, the statutory Rules, 2015 framed in respect of the appointment and has given complete go-bye the provisions contained in Section 22(2) of the Act which don’t empower the Managing Committee or the Board, for dismissal or termination of teaching or non-teaching employees of such schools, until Rules are framed as required under section 22(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981. Bihar State Non Government Recognised Sanskrit School (up to Madhyama Standard) Teacher Service Conditions Rules, 2015, has been framed under Section 22(2) of the Act, which mandates the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action and award major or minor punishment, including the dismissal, as per the provision of the Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015. The illegal action of termination was taken by the Managing Committee on 09.07.2022.

¶34

In these backgrounds, learned counsel submitted that there is non-compliance of the mandates prescribed under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015 while passing the order dated 26.12.2024. The Appellate Authority without following the required procedure prescribed in sub-rule (4) of the Rule 13 of

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 5/12

¶36

the Rules, 2015 has inflicted the major punishment of dismissal upon the petitioners. Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015 is reproduced hereinafter:

¶37

“ 13- vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZA& ¼1½ lfefr] f'k{kd ds fo:) vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ djus ;k y?kq ;k o`gr naM nsus esa l{ke gksxh%

¶38

ijUrq] naM nsus ds iwoZ] f'k{kd dks vius ekeys ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk mfpr volj fn;k tk;xkA izca/k lfefr ds fu.kZ; ls O;fFkr O;fDr 60 fnukad ds Hkhrj v/;{k] fcgkj laLd`r f'k{kk cksMZ ds ;gka vihy nk;j dj ldrk gS ,oa v/;{k lHkh i{kksa dks lqudj viuk fu.kZ; nsaxs tks vafre gksxkA

¶39

¼2½ lfefr fo|ky; ds ifjoh{;eku O;fDr lfgr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fuEufyf[kr dksbZ Hkh naM ns ldsxh& ¼d½ y?kq naM & ifjfuUnk ¼lsUlj½

¶40

¼3½ lfefr lac) O;fDr dks vius vkpj.k ds laca/k esa lE;d :i ls fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk volj ns ldsxk vkSj mlesa lfefr dk fu.kZ; vafre gksxkA

¶41

¼4½ fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ cM+k naM nsus ls iwoZ lgk;d f'k{kd ds ekeys esa iz/kkuk/;kid rFkk iz/kkuk/;kid ds ekeys esa lfefr ds v/;{k vkSj lfpo ds }kjk lfoLrkj vkjksi i= rS;kj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj lfefr ladYi ds }kjk ml ij fu.kZ; ysxkA bl izdkj fojfpr vkjksi fofuZfn"V gksaxs vkSj mlesa lHkh lqlaxr rF; fn;s jgsaxs rkfd lac) O;fDr dks lkQ&lkQ le> esa vk tk; fd blij dkSu&dkSu ls vkjksi yxk;s x;s gSaA tgkW izFke n`’V;k vkjksi cgqr xaHkhj gks vkSj lfefr eglwl djs fd &

¶42

¼d½ ,sls O;fDr dks fo|ky; dh lsok esa cus jguk fo|ky; ds vuq'kklu vkSj lkekU; HkykbZ dh n`f"V ls vfgrdj gksxkA

¶43

;k

¶44

¼[k½ laca) O;fDr fo|ky; vfHkys[k esa myV Qsj vFkok rksM+&ejksM+ dj ldrk gS vFkok fo|ky; dh laifRr ;k lkt&leku dks vU; uqdlku igqapk ldrk gS] rks lfefr] fo'ks"k ladYi ds }kjk ,sls O;fDr dks fuyafcr djus dk fofu'p; dj ldsxkA

¶45

¼5½ ftl O;fDr ij dk;Zokgh pyk;h tk; mls viu mij yxk;s x;s vkjksi] fu;e&11 ¼4½ ds v/khu vius fuyacu ds ,d lIrkg ds Hkhrj] fyf[kr :i ls fn;s tk;saxs vkSj mls vkjksi i= izkfIr ds iUnzg fnuksa ds Hkhrj Li"Vhdj.k nsuk

¶46

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025

¶47

6/12

¶48

gksxkA Li"Vhdj.k dh izkfIr dh rkjh[k ls ,d i[kokjs ds Hkhrj lfefr dh cSBd cqyk;h tk;xh vkSj ftlds fy;s] gjsd lnL; dks] jftLVªhd`r Mkd ;k fo'ks"k nwr }kjk iwjs nl fnuksa dh uksfVl nh tk;sxhA bl cSBd esa orZeku lnL;ksa dh dqy la[;k dh nks&frgkbZ lnL;ksa dk dksje gksxkA ;fn iz/kkuk/;kid ;k lfefr esa f'k{kd ;k izfrfuf/k Lo;a vkjksi ls lac) gks rks og ,slh cSBd esa mifLFkr ugha jgsxkA

¶49

¼6½ v/;{k@lfpo] fcgkj laLdr f'k{kk cksMZ] iVuk dh lgefr ds fcuk dksbZ iz/kkuk/;kid@f'k{kd rhu eghus ls vf/kd vof/k ds fy;s fuyafcr u fd;k tk;sxkA iz/kkuk/;kid ds ekeys esa v/;{k] fcgkj laLdr f'k{kk cksMZ dh vuqefr ds fcuk fuyacu vkns'k ykxw ugha gksxkA fuyacu dh vof/k esa mls thou fuokZg HkRrk tks mlds ekfld osru thou ;kiu HkRrk lfgr dk vk/kk gksxkA

¶50

¼7½ lac) O;fDr ds Li"Vhdj.k ij lE;d fopkj djus vkSj vuqjks/k fd;s tkus ij mls lquokbZ dk volj nsus ds ckn] lfefr] fu;e 13 esa fofuZfn"V dksbZ cM+k naM nsus ;k vkjksiksa ls foeqDr djus dk fofu'p; dj ldsxkA vfHk;qDr ds vkjksiksa ls foeqDr fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fuyacu dh vof/k] drZO;LFk vof/k ekuh tk;xh vkSj ml vof/k dk iwjk osru vkSj HkRrk fn;k tk;xkA ;fn lfefr] cM+s naMksa esa ls dksbZ naM nsus dk fofu'p; djs rks ml vof/k esa fuyacu dh vof/k drZO;LFk ugha ekuh tk;sxhA

¶51

¼8½ ,ls lHkh ekeys es ] ftuesa sa lfefr cM+s nMka sa esa ls dkbs Z nM na us s dk fofu'p; dj] ,s lk ns Ma okLro e dk;ksa fZ Uor fd; tkus ds igys dk;s okgh dZ lHkhs vfHky[k vks j O;k[;kRed vxzi= fcgkj lS Ldr f'k{kka ckMs dZ ikl Hks ts tk;s xsa A lfefr ds fus</u> .k; lZ** **<u>O;fFkrs O;fDr 60 fnuk dsa Hkhrj v/;{k] fcgkj ls Ldr f'k{kk cka Ms Z d ikl vihy dj lds xk ,os v/;{k] fcgkj la Ld`r f'k{kka ckMs lHkh i{kkZ dksa lqudj viuk fus .k; nZ xsa A cks Ms vFkokZ ckMs dZ v/;{k ds fus .k; lZ O;fFkr O;fDr vkns 'k fuxs rZ gkus s dh frfFk ls 60 fnuksa ds vUnj fo'k"k funs 'kd]s ek/;fed f'k{kk d ikl vihy nk;j dj lds xkA fo'ks "ks fun'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk lHkh i{kks sa dk lquokbs dk iwZ .kZ ekdk nS dj viuk fus .k; nZ xsa As ”(Emphasis Supplied)

¶52

The order dated 26.12.2024 contained in Memo

¶53

No.187 passed by the Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education Department cum Appellate Authority is fit to be setaside and quashed.

¶54

Per contra, Mr. S. K. Pandey tendered his

¶55

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 7/12

¶56

appearance on behalf of the respondent no.14 and submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Managing Committee, which was illegally interfered by the Chairman of the Board. The Appellate Authority after discussing the entire case of the petitioners, as well as, the respondent no.14 and the action taken by the Managing Committee and the Chairman of the Board has passed a reasoned order in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2019 7 SCC 513 , wherein it has been held that in respect of the private institutions, where teachers are aggrieved by the action of the Managing Committee, the remedy lies before the Civil Court, having jurisdiction by filing civil suit. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are facing prosecution for having stolen away the entire documents of the Managing Committee, regarding which Itarhi P.S. Case No. 96 of 2022 has been lodged. However, he informs that final form has been submitted and subsequently a criminal case has also been lodged against the respondent no.14 bearing Itarhi P.S. Case No.128 of 2023 and reference of which is contained in Memo No.247 dated 07.06.2023. However, he submits that the investigation is still going on and as a result of the expiry of the period, the

¶57

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 8/12

¶58

respondent no.14 is not a member of the Managing Committee as on date.

¶59

Mr. Md. Syed Ahmad has tendered his appearance on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and based on the instruction as well as records, he informs that the decision of the Managing Committee dated 09.07.2022 was not approved by the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Till the action is not taken in accordance with sub-rule (8) of the Rule 13 of the Rules, 2015, the petitioners were permitted to attend the school by interfering with the major punishment of dismissal which was passed against the petitioners by the Managing Committee. Against the said decision, he submitted that the Managing Committee preferred appeal before the Secretary of the Board. He further submitted that so far as, legality or challenge to the order dated 26.12.2024 is concerned, the same is subject matter in the present writ petition. He emphatically submitted that it is well settled law that before any action is taken in respect of dismissal or termination of an employee or even those who are engaged on contractual basis or ad hoc or in case they are working as guest employees, the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the procedures prescribed therein are required to be followed.

¶60

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 9/12

¶61

Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority contained in Memo No.187 dated 26.12.2024 and has supported the argument made on behalf of the respondent no.14.

¶62

Heard the parties.

¶63

Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having taken note of the conditions as laid down in Rule 13(2), of the Rules, 2015, which for proper adjudication of the writ petition is reproduced hereinafter:

¶64

“Rule 13(2) (a) speaks about Minor Punishment-Admonition/ Censor and Rule 13 (2) (b) speaks about Major Punishment - (i) Reduction in Rank (ii) Removal from service (iii) Dismissal.”

¶65

It appears from the very perusal of the Rule 13(2) (b) of the Rules, 2015, which has been framed under Section 20(2) of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981, as per the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, having statutory force. The Impugned Order has been passed by the Special Secretary (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar who has been appointed as per the provision of Rules 2015, the order passed by such authority can only be held to be quasi judicial order amenable

¶66

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 10/12

¶67

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the school, in so far as not following the prescribed procedure as laid down under Rule 13(2)(b) of the Rules, 2015 before inflicting the punishment of dismissal. The Managing Committee has also instituted a criminal case bearing Itarhi P.S. Case No.96 of 2024 allegedly that the petitioner has taken away the entire documents of the Managing Committee and the said case is pending before the competent Court. It is well settled that disciplinary proceeding and the criminal case are two different proceedings as held in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in, (1999) 3 SCC 679 .

¶68

In above background, I find that so far as the legality of the action taken by the Managing Committee is concerned, it has been contended on behalf of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board that the provision of Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Rules, 2015 is in fact a complete code. The procedure as prescribed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India are mandatorily required to be followed. The petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding any proper enquiry and without affording opportunity in accordance with law.

¶69

I find that the Appellate Authority has not taken

¶70

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 11/12

¶71

into consideration, while considering the case of Trigun Chand Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 513 at the relevant time, the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board Act, 1981 has been amended vide notification dated 13.02.2015, which prescribes for the manner in which Disciplinary Action has to be taken in Section 13 of the Amended Act as has been referred hereinabove.

¶72

In that view, I find that the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Trigun Chand Thakur (Supra) will not govern the case of the petitioner and as such the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner relying on the said decision of the Apex Court directing the petitioner that dispute in question against the action of the Managing Committee, the remedy lies before the Competent Civil Court is misconceived.

¶73

Section 15 of the Amended Act, 2015 provides that teachers or Managing Committee, if aggrieved, by any of the decision passed by the Chairman of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board, the remedy lies before the Special Director, Secondary Education within a period of sixty days. The petitioner had filed appeal within time. The Appellate Authority has erred by taking into consideration the order passed in Trigun Chand Thakur

¶74

Patna High Court CWJC No.1831 of 2025 dt.06-02-2025 12/12

¶75

(Supra) while rejecting the appeal . The remedy lies before the Appellate Authority after coming into force of the Amended Act, 2015.

¶76

In light of the above observation, the Special Secretary must proceed to exercise its jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the Managing Committee on the basis of the records available before it.

¶77

The impugned order contained in Memo No. 187 dated 26.12.2024 is modified to the above extent.

¶78

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands

¶79

disposed of.

¶80

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶81

Mantreshwar Ashishsingh

¶82

AFR/NAFR	N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	18.02.2025
Transmission Date	N.A.

Kumari Satyabhama v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

Kumari Satyabhama v. The State of Bihar

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

Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Akbar Ansari Vs The State of Bihar

Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Subhendra Narayan Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shushila Kumari Vs The State of Bihar