MADAN PRASAD ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 28/2/2020 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner and he has been reverted to the lowest time scale salary with effect from the date of issuance of the order. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dtd. 1/9/2020, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the enquiry report dtd. 29/11/2019 as also for directing the respondents to pay his salary from August, 2019 to February, 2020 i.e. for the period of suspension, for which the petitioner has not even been paid the subsistence allowance.

(2.) The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that one Priyaranjan Kumar (Assistant Teacher), Project Girls High School, Dumariya Bujurg, Khagaria, was transferred by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger on 29/6/2018 to the school where the petitioner was posted as InCharge Headmaster. The said transfer order was illegal inasmuch as the same was issued without verifying the sanctioned strength of the petitioner's school i.e. Shovani Chandpura, Inter School, Jalkoidha, Khagaria. The petitioner had then approached the Director, Secondary Education, seeking guidance regarding accommodating and adjusting the aforesaid Priyaranjan Kumar inasmuch as the said incumbent had been transferred vide transfer order dtd. 29/6/2018, beyond the sanctioned strength of the school, however, the Director, Secondary Education, considered the said act of the petitioner of directly communicating with him to be an indication of indiscipline, hence a show cause notice dtd. 26/10/2018 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had then offered an apology, however, subsequently the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dtd. 22/8/2019 and on the same day a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had accepted the joining of one Priyaranjan Kumar on 7/7/2018 and only on 4/9/2018, he had sought guidance from the Director, Secondary Education regarding adjustment of Priyaranjan Kumar, after making payment of salary to him, hence the petitioner had engaged in misconduct. It was also alleged that though there was no vacant post of Assistant Teacher in the school in question, the petitioner had not only adjusted the said Priyaranjan Kumar but had also helped him by illegally releasing his salary and only after a long time, vide letter dtd. 4/9/2018, the petitioner had informed about non-availability of vacant post of teacher in the said school as also had sought guidance as to on what post the said Priyaranjan Kumar should be adjusted, thus the same shows carelessness and arbitrariness on the part of the petitioner as also amounts to the petitioner having engaged in financial irregularity. The petitioner had then submitted his reply dtd. 14/10/2019 stating therein that he had only complied with the order dtd. 29/6/2018, passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger, made pursuant to the recommendation of the Divisional Establishment Committee and moreover, since it was clearly mentioned in the said transfer order that the transfer was being made against a vacant post, the petitioner had no occasion to doubt the correctness of the said order dtd. 29/6/2018, however, only when the petitioner had visited the office of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger and obtained a list of the sanctioned posts of the schools of the District, he came to know about the sanctioned strength of his school and regarding non-availability of vacant post for accommodating the said Priyaranjan Kumar, thus he had sought guidance from the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna inasmuch as the order of transfer had been issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger. It was also stated by the petitioner in his reply that since the said teacher had worked for the month of July and there was direction to make payment of his salary, the petitioner had implemented the order of his superior authorities. The Enquiry Officer, had then submitted the enquiry report dtd. 29/11/2019, apparently with a perverse finding to the effect that only when the said Priyaranjan Kumar was made In-Charge, of the school by the District Education Officer, vide memo dtd. 23/10/2018, the petitioner had raised objection and sought guidance regarding the said irregularity as also had become active. Nonetheless, the Enquiry Officer had found the charge leveled against the petitioner to have been proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide letter dtd. 27/12/2019 had issued a second show cause notice to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and then the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, by the impugned order dtd. 28/2/2020, has inflicted major punishment of reversion to the lowest time scale salary with effect from the date of issuance of the order, upon the petitioner. The petitioner had then filed an appeal, however, the same has also been dismissed by an order dtd. 1/9/2020 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and has travelled beyond the charge inasmuch as the charge was that though the aforesaid Priyaranjan Kumar was transferred on 29/6/2018 and his joining was accepted by the petitioner on 7/7/2018 but he had raised the issue regarding there being no vacant post of Assistant Teacher in the school in question belatedly and had sought guidance from the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna only on 4/9/2018, however, the Enquiry Officer has come to a finding that for the first time, the petitioner had become alert and had sought guidance only after the said Priyaranjan Kumar was sought to be made In-Charge of the school by the District Education Officer, Khagaria vide Memo dtd. 23/10/2018 and the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge. Thus, it is submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is beyond the materials on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner has neither been considered by the Enquiry Officer nor by the disciplinary authority, which is apparent from the enquiry report dtd. 29/11/2019 and the impugned order of punishment dtd. 28/2/2020. Lastly, it is submitted that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the impugned order dtd. 28/2/2020 is disproportionate, hence on this ground as well the order of punishment dtd. 28/2/2020 is fit to be set aside.