(1.) The petitioner, in the present writ application, seeks quashing of an order dated 27.9.2003 passed by the Secretary of Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), Patna whereby major punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 15.9.2011 and 11.11.2011 whereby the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal against the impugned order imposing punishment and upon reconsideration again affirmed the said order imposing punishment. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was working as an Assistant under the Board. He was deputed by the Board along with two other employees to an evaluation centre, i.e., Murlidhar High School, Jehanabad where evaluation of answer sheets was going on, vide memo No. 334 dated 15.4.1998. It appears that certain serious irregularities were detected in course of evaluation by local District Administration. A raid was conducted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad who found certain answer sheets being carried outside the evaluation centre. Few answer sheets were seized and first information report was instituted. The Centre Superintendent of the Evaluation Centre, this petitioner, two other persons sent on deputation by the Board, and a teacher of the concerned school were made accused in the first information report. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide memo No. 48 dated 10.7.1998 containing altogether 10 charges.
(2.) The petitioner filed his reply to the charges denying the allegation against him and taking a plea that responsibility of evaluation was mainly on the Centre Superintendent and District Education Officer, as per the Evaluation Centre Conduct Directory, 1998 and the responsibility of the Board Staff was related only to the payment to the persons engaged in the evaluation work. He is also said to have demanded relevant papers on which charges were framed. It is specific case of the petitioner that though an enquiry officer was appointed, no detailed enquiry was held, no witnesses were called, no documents were supplied and vide memo dated 7.11.2000 the respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of reduction in rank be not imposed upon him. In the said notice dated 7.11.2000, the Secretary of the Board indicated that most of the charges had been found to be proved by the enquiry officer.
(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed a writ application vide CWJC No. 11689 of 2000. This court vide order dated 23.11.2000 allowed the writ application quashing part of the order dated 7.11.2000 whereby reduction in rank was sought to be imposed upon the petitioner. This court gave the petitioner liberty to raise all other questions in the writ application in the second show cause before the authority concerned. This court in the said order dated 23.11.2000 further observed, "it is needless to say that the authorities concerned shall consider all the questions raised and dispose it of in accordance with law". Thereafter, vide memo dated 8.12.2000 the offending part of the order dated 23.11.2000 was deleted. Nearly, two and half years thereafter the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report and a copy of the first information report instituted against him, in the name of evidence in the departmental proceeding. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 30.6.2003 saying that there was absolutely no oral enquiry held and without examination of witnesses, without giving the petitioner opportunity of cross-examination merely on the basis of first information report, the action was sought to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner took a plea before respondent No. 3, the Secretary of the Board, that the first information report and seizure list of the first information report themselves could not be treated as evidence. On 27.9.2003, thereafter, the impugned order was issued.