HIRDAYA NAND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.

(2.) THE orders as contained in annexures -10 and 13 dated 10.3.2003 and 2.11.2004/17.11.2004 respectively are under challenge.

(3.) IT is contended by counsel for the petitioner that it would be manifest from annexure -10 that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad, Respondent No. 4 revoked the order of suspension passed against the petitioner and imposed certain punishments vide orders dated 28.2.2003/ 5.3.2003 and the orders were communicated by the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad, Respondent No. 5. It is further contended that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad was the enquiry officer which would be evident from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and since the D.D.C. was the enquiry officer he could not have become the disciplinary authority. It is also contended that even the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner.