VINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Statistical Supervisor. He was posted in the office of the District Education Officer at Biharsharif in the district of Nalanda. On 9.3.2006 at Annexure -1, a communication was issued by the Deputy Collector Incharge of the Public Grievances Cell addressed to the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, that complaints have been received against the petitioner. He should, therefore, be transferred out of the District Headquarters with a compliance report to be submitted. Annexure -2, dated 16.3.2006 then came to be issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda stating that on direction of the Deputy Collector Incharge dated 9.3.2006 the petitioner was deputed to the office of the Sub -Divisional Education Officer, Hilsa. Thereafter, an order dated 14.7.2006 at Annexure -3 came to be issued from the office of the District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif by which the services of the petitioner were transferred to the office of the Regional Deputy Director, Patna Division, Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the Education Department. His controlling authority is the District Education Officer. The impugned orders at Annexures -1, 2 & 3 are illegal on the face of it as being without jurisdiction. It is apparent from the recitals in Annexure -2 that it has not been passed by his Controlling Officer of his own volition by independent application of mind to his satisfaction, but that it has been passed at the dictates of the Deputy Collector. The controlling authority has, therefore, abdicated his statutory powers and acted on the direction of and behest of an external authority which vitiates the order. For like reason Annexure -3 is completely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the District Magistrate has no power to transfer the petitioner. In consequence of the aforesaid situation, the petitioner has not been paid his salary since July, 2006.

(3.) THE submissions from the counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents are that the petitioner has managed to remain posted in the district of Nalanda for approximately 24 years. Allegations were received against him and, therefore, the district administration was forced to return back his services to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna. That the District Magistrate was the administrative head of the district and, therefore, the order requires no interference.