BRIHASPATI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 8.11.92 (Annexure 3) passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Rohtas by which under the orders of the District Magistrate his two increments have been stopped by way of punishment.

(2.) At the material time the Petitioner was working as headmaster of the Middle school, Gobardhanpur, PS. Akauhigola in the district of Rohtas. It appears that on 18-3-91 the Respondent District Superintendent of Education had visited the school in question and he found two assistant teachers, namely, Shri Ram Sakal Tiwary and Bijoy Pratap absent. Therefore, apart from suspending the Petitioner, the Respondent-District Superintendent of Education served charge-sheet (Annexure 6) containing various charges. The Petitioner filed his show-cause. This was followed by order as contained in Annexures 1, 2, and 3. By Annexure-3 dated 8-11-92 two increments of the Petitioners have been stopped as a measure of punishment. It has also been directed that during the period of suspension he will be entitled only to subsistence allowance.

(3.) I need not enter into all the questions which have been raised for assailing the impugned order since the present writ application has to be decided on the question of jurisdiction itself, as decided in a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Murari Pandey and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 1994 1 BLJ 53 werein it has been held as under: