KAMAL KISHORE MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the order dated 26-6-91 (Annexure 6) passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Purnea, by which he along with Anr. person has been subjected to certain punishment in a departmental proceeding as also the order dated 5.1.91/11.2.93 (Annexure-7) passed by the Divisional Commissioner affirming the aforesaid order of punishment as an appellate authority.

(2.) At the material time the Petitioner was working as an assistant teacher in the Middle school, Belsara, Raniganj, in the district of Araria. The Deputy Development Commissioner issued a show-cause notice dated 30-6-89 (Annexure 1) to the Petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why a departmental proceeding be not initiated against him because he has obstructed in execution of the distress warrant for realisation of dues against Ex-Mukhia and has thus interfered with the execution of the Government work. The Petitioner filed his show cause on 17.7.89 which is at Annexure-2. By an order dated 17th August, 1989 (Annexure 3) issued by the District Superintendent of Education under the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, the Petitioner, was put under suspension and was also served with a charge-sheet (Annexure 4) containing in substance the charges as mentioned in Annexure-1, referred to above. The Petitioner again filed his detailed show cause. Thereafter the impugned order dated 26-6-91 (Annexure 6) was passed by the Respondent District Superintendent of Education stating therein that under the orders of the District Magistrate and the Deputy Development Commissioner, his suspension has been revoked subject to the punishment of stoppage of three increments and payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. This order has been affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner by his order as contained in Annexure 7. 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. The State of Bihar and Ors.,1994 1 BLJ 53 wherein it has been held that,

(3.) Keeping in view the law as stated above since in the present case the impugned orders have been passed under the orders of the District Magistrate and the Deputy Development Commissioner, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are accordingly quashed.