Allowed¶40

Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Apr 2026CWJC/4505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Natural justice; termination of teacher without opportunity of hearing; alleged forged document; unilateral findings; reinstatement with liberty to hold inquiry; no back salary for intervening period; Block Employment Unit-cum-Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bagaha-1, West Champaran; Patna High Court CWJC; precedents engaged: order dated 14.11.2017 in LPA No. 501 of 2017; Vibha Kumari v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 20170 of 2025; Chief Post Master General v. Nirbhay Kumar, 2008 (3) P.L.J.R. 344 (within quoted extract).

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order dated 30.01.2023 set aside; petitioner to be reinstated; respondents free to proceed thereafter in accordance with law, including by conducting an inquiry; no salary payable for the intervening period. ¶40

Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's termination by order dated 30.01.2023, founded on a unilateral finding that the document appended by her was forged and passed without an opportunity of hearing, violated the principles of natural justice and warranted being set aside.

¶36

Court's answer

Passing the impugned termination order on unilateral findings, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Taking cue from the Court's earlier adjudications in LPA No. 501 of 2017 and Vibha Kumari (CWJC No. 20170 of 2025) and adopting a similar view, the writ application is allowed and the impugned termination order dated 30.01.2023 is set aside, with respondents to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶39

Key takeaways

No salary will be paid to the petitioner for the intervening period.ratio¶39
The petitioner's position is dependent upon the final outcome of the inquiry to be conducted by the respondents and the action they propose to take after such inquiry.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Ajit Kumar, J) allowed CWJC No.4505 of 2026 filed by Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari, whose services had been terminated by order dated 30.01.2023 of the Secretary, Block Employment Unit-cum-Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bagaha-1, West Champaran on a unilateral finding that the document appended by her was forged, without any opportunity of hearing. Holding that termination without hearing violated the principles of natural justice, and taking cue from its earlier adjudications in the order dated 14.11.2017 in LPA No. 501 of 2017 and in Vibha Kumari v. The State of Bihar (CWJC No. 20170 of 2025), the Court set aside the termination order, directed reinstatement and liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law, with no salary for the intervening period and further action dependent on the outcome of an inquiry by the respondents.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4505 of 2026

¶2

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

¶3

Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari Daughter of Bachcha Ram, Resident of Village- Kapardhika, P.S- Bhairoganj, District- West Champaran.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶7

The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

¶8

¶9

¶10

The District Education Officer, West Champaran.

¶11

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), West Champaran.

¶12

The Secretary, Block Employment Unit-cum-Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bagaha-1, District- West Champaran.

¶13

The Block Education Officer, Bagaha-1, District- West Champaran.

¶14

The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Laxmipur, Block- Bagaha-1, District- West Champaran.

¶15

... ... Respondent/s

¶16

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (01) ======================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶18

2 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar

¶20

issues had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Division of this Court and the issues have already been put at rest vide order dated 14.11.2017 passed in LPA No. 501 of 2017. The relevant portion is being extracted which reads as follows:-

¶21

“Petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the year 2014 based on the certificate issued to him for having passed the T.E.T. However, after working for about three years, by the impugned

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.4505 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026 2/5

¶23

order dated 1.12.2016, after about two years, his services have been terminated by indicating that he has submitted a forged eligibility test certificate for seeking appointment. However, it is an admitted position that after working for about two years, on account of producing a forged T.E.T. Certificate, his services were terminated without issuing notice to him, without granting him any opportunity of defence or without following the principles of natural justice. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Nirbhay Kumar, 2008 (3) P.L.J.R. 344 has laid down the principle that when penal action is taken and services of an employee is terminated, which has an adverse consequence on the delinquent employee, at least an opportunity of hearing should be granted to him. Even though these grounds were canvassed before the learned Writ Court, the learned Writ Court seems to have dismissed the writ petition because even the T.E.T. certificate, which was alleged to be forged, was not filed.

¶24

In our considered view, when it is an admitted position that when the services of the petitioner were terminated for having procured it by producing a forged certificate, an opportunity of hearing was required to be granted to the petitioner and the same having not been done, this itself is sufficient enough to allow the writ petition.

¶25

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow the petition, quash the order dated 8.2.2017 and grant liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. The respondents should

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.4505 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026 3/5

¶27

reinstate the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law. For the intervening period, no salary will be paid to the petitioners. So far as the appellant is concerned, it would be dependent upon the final out come of the enquiry conducted by the respondents and the action that they propose to take after such enquiry.”

¶28

It is next submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has

¶29

also dealt with the same issue by passing appropriate order in the case of Vibha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 20170 of 2025) and the relevant portion is being extracted which reads as follows:-

¶30

“2. This writ application has been filed for setting aside the order of removal as contained in Letter No. 22 dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher Employment Committee-cum-Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Karup, Block-Sasaram, District-Rohtas by which the services of the petitioner have been removed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶31

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-P/3), it shall transpire that the petitioner's services have been terminated/dismissed alleging that he had obtained employment on the basis of forged documents. Whatever be the nature of allegation, the petitioner contends that he should at least have been heard

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.4505 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026 4/5

¶33

prior to being removed from service which was not done in the present case. He further assails the impugned order by submitting that not only her employment has been canceled but also order for recovery of the payments taken by him during the service period has been directed to be recovered.

¶34

4. It is by now well settled that if allegations are made against any person and based on those allegations, if the service is to be terminated dismissed then opportunity of hearing must be provided to that person. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that prior to issuance of the termination order, no notice was issued to the petitioner and without granting him any opportunity of defence or without following the principles of natural justice, the services of the petitioner has been terminated and direction for recovery has been made.

¶35

5. In the considered view of this Court, an opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the petitioner prior to passing the termination order, which has admittedly not been done in the present case and, therefore, this itself is sufficient enough to quash and set aside the termination order and allow the writ petition.”

¶36

From the order impugned itself, it appears that merely on the basis of unilateral findings, the document, appended by the petitioner, has been found to be forged without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as is apparent.

¶37

Accordingly, taking cue from the adjudication

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.4505 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026 5/5

¶39

made by this Court in the aforementioned cases and adopting a similar view, the violation of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned termination order, as is evident from the impugned order dated 30.01.2023, which is under challenge, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order of termination dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Secretary, Block Employment Unit -cum- Block Panchayati Raj Officer, Bagaha-1, West Champaran is set aside and the respondents should reinstate the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with law. For the intervening period, no salary will be paid to the petitioner. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it would be dependent upon the final outcome of the inquiry conducted by the respondents and the action that they propose to take after such inquiry.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

¶41

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶42

rishi/-

¶43

Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leelawati Kumari @ Lilavati Kumari 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

Prins Raj @ Prince Raj Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Keshari @ Arun Keshri Vs The State of Bihar

Nazma Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Dr. Triveni Nath Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Mohammad Murtuza Ansari Vs The State of Bihar