ANIL KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Regional Deputy Director, Magadh Division, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 19.10.1990, petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground to Class IV post. The matter relating to his promotion as Clerk was considered by the District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 27.8.1991 and curiously finding the work of the petitioner to be satisfactory, it recommended for his promotion as the clerk. The Establishment Committee resolved that the District Superintendent of Education shall forward the said recommendation to the Regional Deputy Director of Education of Magadh Division through the District Education Officer. As resolved by the Committee, the District Superintendent of Education, by its letter dated 12th of September, 1991 (Annexure -1), sent its recommendation for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Clerk i.e. Class III post. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, by memo dated 19th October, 1992 (Annexure -4), promoted the petitioner to the post of Clerk and posted him in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad. Ultimately, the petitioners promotion as Clerk was cancelled by the Regional Deputy Director of Education by order dated 2nd of September, 1995 (Annexure -9) and the petitioner was posted as orderly peon in the office of the Block Extension Education Officer, Makhdumpur (South). Petitioner challenged the said order by filing writ application before this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 6900 of 1995 (Arun Kumar Pandey V/s. The State of Bihar & ors.) This Court, by order dated

(3.) THE respondents finding the order of this Court passed, in Letters Patent Appeal to be forged, by order dated 26.12.1998 (Annexure -17), placed the petitioner under suspension and by order of the same date, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report dated 3.5.2000 (Annexure -19). Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer had observed that in the absence of the evidence on record, the charge against the petitioner has not been fully proved.