KAILASH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a teacher in Primary School. An inspection was made by the Block Development Officer on 15.2.1997 and he was found absent and as such he was suspended and a proceeding was initiated against him. After completion of the enquiry, enquiry report dated 10th August, 1997, Annexure -4 was submitted holding that charge was not established against the petitioner and as such recommendation was made for revocation of the suspension and also for dropping the proceeding. However, the disciplinary authority differing with the enquiry report awarded punishment of censure and during the period of suspension the petitioner will only be entitled to subsistence allowance vide order contained in letter dated 18.10.1997, Annexure -5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order Annexure -5 filed appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 1.6.2000, Annexure -9. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 9.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been admitted that enquiry report was submitted holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges and recommendation was made for revocation of suspension and also for dropping the proceeding. However, it has been stated that order of punishment has been passed by the competent authority after considering the entire materials available on the record.

(3.) ON consideration this much is obvious that the petitioner was found absent on the date of inspection. An enquiry was held and enquiry report was submitted holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. The Enquiry Officer recommended for revocation of suspension and dropping the proceeding. However, the Disciplinary Authority differing with the enquiry report passed the order of punishment, Annexure5 without issuing notice to the petitioner. It is well established rule of law that the disciplinary authority has right to differ with the enquiry report but in such a situation, the disciplinary authority is required to issue notice to the delinquent mentioning the point of difference. But in the instant case nothing of the kind has been done. The appellate authority also did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and dismissed the appeal.