PITAMBARJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ application prays to quash various order as contained in Annexures-5,6 and 8, as also the enquiry report as contained in Annexure-4.

(2.) Annexure-8 contains a common order passed by the Bihar Administrative Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal') in four service cases, including that of the petitioner, whose Service Case was numbered as 156 of 1986. In Service Case No. 156 of 1986 aforementioned, the petitioner had assailed the correctness of the order of the Collector, Saharsa, as contained in Annexure-5 herein. By Annexure-5, the suspension order of the petitioner was revoked, however, with two punishments as mentioned therein. Annexure-4 contains the enquiry report of the Deputy Collector, Sipaul, submitted to the Collector, Saharsa. The charges levelled against the petitioners are contained in Annexure-2. It has been stated therein that on enquiry from the villagers it transpired that he does not come to the school regularly. The petitioner was also asked to file showcause within fifteen days of its receipt. The petitioner was also asked as to whether he intends to say anything orally, which should be mentioned in the show-cause. In his show-cause (as contained in Annexure-3), he refuted the charges stating that it is not known as to who has made the complaint in regard to his alleged absence and that the matter can be decided by a local enquiry. In his show-cause, be also stated that he had gone on casual leave after getting it accepted by Block Education Extension Officer, Triveniganj West. This fact stands supported by part of Annexure-3 itself, No local enquiry, however, was made by the Enquiring Officer as requested by the petitioner. The inqiry report (as contained in Annexure-4) does not show that the authority concerned recorded any evidence in support of the said alligation. He merely doubted the claim of the petitioner in regard to his casual leave on 3-8-1985 on the ground that it was not brought to the notice of the Block Development Officer at the time of inspection oi the School. In regard to the charge that the petitioner does not come regularly to the School, the Enquiring Officer opined that this charge is not clear and does not stand proved. Annexure-8, however, does not show that in fact the Tribunal has specifically dealt this aspect of the matter though it noted the common submission made by the learned counsel appearing before it for all the petitioners that the Enquiring Officer had not conducted the proceeding in accordance with law inasmuch as he took no evidence and held that no illegality has been committed.

(3.) No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents.