MANORMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing a portion of the order dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure -5) whereby, while revoking the order of suspension, it has been directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any other emolument other than subsistence allowance paid to her during the period of suspension. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 3.5.2003 (Annexure - 10) where by the representation filed by the petitions against the aforesaid order has been reacted by the Director of Primary Education.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 4.1.2001 (Annexure -1) petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. Ultimately by order dated 4.9.2001 (Annexure -5) the order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was visited with the penalty of censure. While revoking the order of suspension it was observed that the petitioner shall not get any emolument other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. Petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred CWJC No. 12976 of 2002 (Manorma Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) and this Court by order dated 6.12.2002 relegated the petitioner to the remedy of representation before the Director, Primary Education. In the light of the liberty given, petitioner filed representation which has been rejected by the Director of Primary Education by the impugned order dated 30th of May, 2003.

(3.) MR . Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the authority in directing that petitioner shall not be entitled for any emolument other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, without giving him any show cause notice of opportunity of hearing renders the order illegal in the eye of law. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Mahabir Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1988 PLJR 82) and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said judgment: ''