Disposed¶32

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Apr 2025CWJC/5419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withholding of teacher's salary; Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024; District Education Officer Jehanabad; accused in Vigilance Case Jehanabad P.S. Case No.757 of 2017; no departmental proceeding initiated; criminal and departmental proceedings independent (per earlier order); Ram Binod Sharma CWJC No.2997 of 2025 decided 25.02.2025 followed; M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1991) 3 SCC 679 referred; memo quashed; release of due salary directed; Director Primary Education Bihar; Patna High Court; Purnendu Singh, J; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024 set aside and quashed; Director, Primary Education, Bihar directed to call for the petitioner's service particulars from the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jehanabad and release the due salary forthwith from the date it has not been paid.

Manoj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Letter contained in Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024 issued by the District Education Officer, Jehanabad, withholding the petitioner's salary from November 2024 merely because he is an accused in Jehanabad P.S.Case No.757 of 2017, was liable to be quashed and the due salary released.

¶21

Court's answer

In view of the admitted fact that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner till date, the impugned order contained in Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024, being passed without following the prescribed procedure, is set aside and quashed, in view of the reasons given in the detailed order passed in the case of Ram Binod Sharma (supra).

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar is directed to call for the service particulars of the petitioner from the office of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jehanabad and release the due amount of salary to the petitioner forthwith from the date the petitioner has not been paid his due salary.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Purnendu Singh, J, oral order, 07-04-2025) in CWJC No.5419 of 2025 (Manoj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.): The petitioner, a teacher, challenged a Letter in Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024 issued by the District Education Officer, Jehanabad, withholding his salary from November 2024 solely because he was named as an accused in Vigilance Case Jehanabad P.S. Case No.757 of 2017. On query, the State confirmed that no departmental proceeding had been initiated against him till date. Following its earlier decision dated 25.02.2025 in CWJC No.2997 of 2025 (Ram Binod Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) — which had relied on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1991) 3 SCC 679 — the Court held that the memo, passed without following the prescribed procedure, was unsustainable, set it aside and quashed it, and directed the Director, Primary Education, Bihar to call for the petitioner's service particulars from the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jehanabad and release the due salary forthwith from the date it was unpaid. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5419 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Manoj Kumar son of Mithlesh Chaudhary, resident of Village-Danu Bigha, Police Station-Makhdumpur in the district of Jehanabad.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Jehanabad.

¶10

The District Programme Officer (Estb.), Jehanabad.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Jehanabad.

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Jehanabad.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Standing Counsel (20) ======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 07-04-2025

¶18

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶19

on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel No.20 for the State.

¶20

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

¶21

“(I) To quash the Letter contained in Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024 issued under the signature of District Education Officer, Jehanabad only to the extent by which the salary of the petitioner was withheld from the month of November, 2024 merely on the ground that he is accused in Jehanabad P.S.Case No.757 of 2017.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.5419 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2025 2/3

¶23

(II) Also to direct the respondents to make payment of the regular salary to the petitioner due w.e.f. November, 2024.

¶24

(III) Also for any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law.”

¶25

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of this Court dated 25.02.2025 passed in CWJC No.2997 of 2025 in respect of one Ram Binod Sharma , who was also a Teacher and against him a Vigilance Case being Jehanabad P.S. Case No.757 of 2017 is pending. Petitioner is also one of the accused persons named in the said Vigilance case (Jehanabad P.S. Case No.757 of 2017 ) and on the said basis, his salary has been stopped.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs that the petitioner is also one of the accused being named in the said Vigilance case, he seeks similar relief, which has been granted to the petitioner of CWJC No.2997 of 2025 ( Ram Binod Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) , wherein this Court after relying upon the Apex Court judgment passed in the case of M.Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1991) 3 SCC 679 has held that criminal and departmental proceedings are two independent proceedings.

¶27

At this stage, a query was made from the learned

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.5419 of 2025(2) dt.07-04-2025 3/3

¶29

State Counsel, as to whether, any departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and in reply, the learned counsel informs that till date no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner.

¶30

In view of the admitted fact that no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner till date, the impugned order contained in Memo No.667 dated 23.11.2024 being passed without following the prescribed procedure is hereby set aside and quashed, in view of the reasons given in detailed order passed in the case of Ram Binod Sharma (supra).

¶31

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar is directed to call for the service particulars of the petitioner from the office of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jehanabad and release the due amount of salary to the petitioner forthwith from the date the petitioner has not been paid his due salary.

¶32

The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

(Purnendu Singh, J)

¶34

Chn/-.

¶35

Manoj Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Kaishar @ Kaishar Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Gauri Shankar Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Khursed Alam @ Raju Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Lalan Kumar Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Narayan Mishra Vs Veer Kuwar Singh University Ara