KAUSHLENDER PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the Commissioner and Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Government of Bihar, to take suitable action in the light of the order dated 11.8.95 in CWJC No. 336/84, and to direct inquiry against the concerned officials for making illegal payment to respondent no.7 Rajendra Chaudhary, clerk in the District Education Office, Lakhisarai, who had been removed from service in the year 1984, the writ petition against which stood dismissed in 1995.

(2.) SUFFICE it to mention for the purpose of the present order that respondent no. 7, Rajendra Choudhary, was appointed as clerk by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur vide memo no. 1086 - 93 dated 23.3.83. On 12.1.84 by memo no. 357 -70 the Director, Secondary Education cancelled the said appointment. The order, in fact, was passed with respect to five persons including the said respondent. He challenged the order before this Court in CWJC No. 336/84. Therein an interim order of stay was passed on 20.2.84 pursuant to which he was allowed to function. In course of time on 11.8.95 the writ petition was dismissed. The order was duly communicated to the Director, Secondary Education by the office of this Court by memo no. 10258 dated 6.11.96. The effect of the dismissal of the writ petition clearly was that the order dated 12.1.84 by which the appointment of respondent no.7 had been cancelled, stood restored. However, in circumstances not disclosed, he was allowed to continue in service all along until 28.2.2002 i.e. pendency of this case.

(3.) ON 13.2.2002 when the case was taken up for hearing the Court observed that if the facts stated by the petitioner are true, it would only be fit and proper to direct a high level inquiry and prosecution of all concerned. While adjourning the case for instructions etc. notice was issued to respondent no.7. Respondent no.7 has since entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. The Director, Secondary Education has also filed affidavit and the case has been heard on different dates. The hearing was adjourned earlier to enable the Director to make in -house inquiry which could save the concerned authorities from the embarrassment of police investigation. On 15.4.2002 when the hearing was taken up, copy of the minutes of the proceedings/ order dated 12.4.2002 was brought on record, perusal of which leaves little room for doubt that respondent no.7 was allowed to continue on the post and also paid salary all along by persons interested in his continuance, apparently for extraneous consideration, to cause an unlawful gain to him at the cost of the State. Though a stand hac been taken in the abovesaid minutes/ order dated 12.4.2002 that communication sent by this Court regarding dismissal of the petition was not received in the office of the Director, Secondary Education or in the concerned field offices, it appears from the Despatch Register of this Court, maintained in the ordinary course of business, that sum of Rs. 2/ - was spent as cost of communication - apparently as postage stamp on 17.10.96. It is clear that the letter was made to disappear. In fact, it was earlier stated on behalf of the respondents by the State counsel that the entire record was missing in the Department.