BHAGWANDAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsel for the parties at length, and after hearing them this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, and the petitioners have also filed their rejoinder.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif. He has impugned the orders (Annexure-3) passed by the Collector-cum-District Officer dated 8th September, 1992, placing htm under suspension, and directing the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, to submit a chargesheet in the prescribed form. The order further provides that the petitioner's headquarters will be the office of the District Education Officer, Biharsharif, and that the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the sole ground that the same has been passed by an authority, who had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order. It is the case of the petitioner that he does not come within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, and in accordance with the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, is not competent to pass an order of suspension.

(3.) Since the question raised is purely a question of law, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Only the salient facts may be noticed. According to the petitioner, while he was working as the Head-Clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif, certain interested persons including the Bihar Arajptric Prarambhik Shikshak Sangh, Nalanda, lodged a complaint before the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nalanda, about the withdrawal of an amount from the general provident fund account. The Deputy Development Commissioner in turn sent the complaint to the District Education Officer for enquiry. The District Education Officer after making an enquiry submitted his report to the Deputy Development Commissionet. The said report was forwarded to the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, who by the impugned order placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has submitted that the enquiry was not properly conducted and in any event there was hardly sufficient material to indict the petitioner It is not necessary for us to go into the merit of the controversy.