GARGI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the validity of the order of the Government of Bihar in the Education Department No. 3821 removing the petitioner from service is under challenge. The petitioner was serving as the Lady Principal of the Government Girls' School, Arrah, and was a permanent member of Class II of the Bihar Education Service. On or about the 2nd of August 1958, the Government of Bihar framed specific charges against the petitioner for various acts of misconduct alleged against her and directed that the Inspectress of Schools, Bihar, namely, Miss Uma Sinha, should hold a departmental enquiry. In that order (Annexure C), the Government clearly directed the enquiring officer to comply with the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The enquiring officer served a copy of the charges on the petitioner and called upon her to submit her explanation in respect of each of the charges. The petitioner's allegation is that though she denied the facts alleged against her, no regular enquiry was held as required by the said Rule 55, that the witnesses were not examined in her presence, nor was she given an opportunity to cross-examine the same or to adduce evidence on her behalf and that the enquiring officer had merely commented on the petitioner's explanation and the necessary papers and came to her own conclusion as regards the guilt or otherwise of the petitioner. On receipt of her report, the Government of Bihar issued a second notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why she should not be dismissed from Government service (Annexure E). While showing cause against this second notice also the petitioner made a grievance of the fact that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the rules, that she was not given proper facilities to defend herself and urged that even at that belated stage she may be given an opportunity of substantiating her explanations. This opportunity was not given and eventually on the 30th of October, 1961 (Annexure H) she was removed from Government service as already stated.

(2.) The main contention of Mr. Basdeo Prasad for the petitioner is that when the facts alleged in the charges were denied by the petitioner, the enquiring officer was bound under the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to give her an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses on whose evidence the charges were said to have been established and also to adduce evidence on her behalf. Some sort of enquiry ought to have been held and the enquiring officer was not justified in concluding the enquiry by merely taking the explanation of the petitioner and giving her own comments of the same specially in respect of those charges where the facts were disputed. It was specifically alleged in paragraph 19 of the petition that the said Rule 55 was not complied with and in reply to the same the Deputy Director of Education has not categorically denied the assertion of facts but on the contrary stated that from the report of the enquiring officer it appeared that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend herself. This so-called inference by the Deputy Director of Education as mentioned in paragraph 15 of his counter-affidavit has also been further challenged by a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner asserting that no regular enquiry was held and that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the departmental witnesses or to adduce evidence on her behalf. This statement thus remains uncontroverted. Moreover, on a perusal of the report of the enquiring officer also we are satisfied that no regular enquiry was held and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses or to adduce her evidence. The enquiring officer merely mentioned the charges, the reply given by the petitioner and her own comments on the same.

(3.) We must, therefore, on the undisputed facts hold that the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules have not been strictly complied with. This observation applies with greater force in respect of charge No. 3 which is the main charge said to have been proved against the petitioner. This relates to the so-called illegal payment of Rs. 220-10-0 to one night watchman of the school, namely, Shri Rajendra Prasad, who according to the charge had already resigned from 8-11-1952. The petitioner's explanation, however, was that he continued in service till 31-1-1953 and hence the payment of his salary was legal. Here, clearly disputed questions of fact arise and the enquiring officer ought to have examined the departmental witnesses to prove the charge and allowed the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the same and also adduce evidence on her behalf.