NAGINA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.1.1993 issued vide Memo No. 24 by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Inspector of Basic School(Acting),Brindawan, Chanpatia in the district of West Champaran. The then Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur appointed several Assistant Teachers by different letters issued on 15.10.1990. The newly appointed persons joined in different Schools where they were posted. The new appointees were asked to appear before the District Education Officer, West Champaran for verification of their certificates and the appointment letters, and after verification, the District Education Officer, West Champaran vide letter No. 3349 dated 13.3.1991 directed that the newly appointed persons except a few, should be paid their salaries. This letter issued on 13.3.1991 is annexure -1 to the writ application. In pursuance to the letter of the District Education Officer, the petitioner sent a list of 89 persons appointed in different Basic Schools and sought for directions from the District Education Officer with respect to payment of their salaries on 27.3.1991. Vide annexure -3 bearing Memo No. 1794 dated 30.3.1991 an order was issued by the District Education Officer referring to the letters No. 3359 and 101 directing for payment. Accordingly, the petitioner vide letter No. 117 dated 2.4.1991 addressed a letter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur informing him that he has received letters from the District Education Officer ordering him to make payments to the newly appointed assistant teachers, a copy of letters Nos. 3359 and 101 addressed to the petitioner are annexed in the writ application.

(2.) IT would appear from the facts stated above that some of the persons had joined the Basic School on the basis of forged and fabricated letters of appointment and an enquiry was conducted against the then Regional Deputy Director of Education as well as the petitioner. The petitioner was put under suspension and charges were framed against the petitioner on 1.6.1992. It would be relevant to summarize the charges framed against the petitioner which are six in numbers and are as follows:

(3.) APART from the fact that the petitioner has challenged the procedure in which the enquiry was conducted, inasmuch, as he was not supplied any documents during the proceeding, the main point raised in this writ application is that the petitioner has been punished on allegation for which no charge had been framed.