UMA SHANKER PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the headmaster of Jugal Kishore High School, Bhaisahi, P.S. Chanpattia, has moved this Court against the order of suspension passed by respondent No. 2, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, on 9.4.1983, as contained in Annexure-1

(2.) The petitioner applied for leave, which was granted by the District Education Officer, and he came to Patna for treatment on 17.3.1983 and was examined by a heart specialist. He was advised further examination, which was being conducted at Patna, and the petitioner was staying in Capital Hotel in room No. 4. On the night intervening 23rd and 24th March, 1983 at about 1.30. A.M. he was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bettiah. He was taken to Bettiah and he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26. 3. 1963. There the petitioner learnt that he had been arrested in connection with Chanpattia P.S. Case No. 26 of 1983 and Jogapatti P.S. Case No. 20 of 1983. His application for bail was rejected but subsequently he was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge. The District Education Officer, by his letter dated 31.3.1983, wrote to the Regional Deputy Director for putting the petitioner under suspension; a copy of that letter is Annexure-2. The District Education Officer, Bettiah, informed the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 13.4.1983 that the petitioner had been released on bail, which is Annexure, The petitioner resumed his duties and information was sent to the Regional Deputy Director in this connection, which is Annexure-4. In spite of all these the order of suspension, as contained in Annexure-1, was passed on 9.4.1983 on the ground that he had been arrested in connection with criminal case. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has moved this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 by which the order of suspension was sought to be justified and reliance was placed on Rule 49(a) of the Bihar Subordinate Services (Discipline and Control) Rules and also Rules 99 and 100 of Bihar Service Code. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the Regional Deputy Director of Education had been empowered to put headmaster under suspension by the Education Department. Further, it has been stated that the suspension has been approved by the Additional Secretary-cum-Director, Secondary Education; a copy of his letter has been filed and marked Annexure-A. Reply to the counter affidavit has been filed in which a Government Circular dated 28th April, 1981 has been filed, which is Annexure-6, giving the circumstances under which headmaster or a teacher can be suspended in course of surprise inspection. Further it has been stated that the approval has been obtained after the application was filed in this Court. A copy of the letter sent by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to the Director of Secondary Education has been filed, which is Annexure-7, in which it is stated that approval should be given for the order of suspension and if it is not done the department may loose the case which was pending in the High Court.