NANDLAL PANDIT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred against an order passed by respondent no. 4 dated 28th of March, 2003 (Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition) whereby the benefit of salary has been withdrawn which was given to the petitioner due to his promotion as a Headmaster. It is alleged by respondents that promotion was wrongly given to the petitioner. This conclusion was arrived at by respondent no. 4 on the basis of a report given by Accountant General Office, but, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore, it has been challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order at Annexure -9 passed by respondent no. 4 dated 28th March, 2003 is without any application of mind. In fact, report given by the Accountant General, which is at Annexure -7 to the memo of the present petition reveals the fact that because of want of documents it is not clear about the present petitioner's qualification etc. and therefore, promotion given to the present petitioner was illegal. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that looking to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents also it has been admitted fact that no documents were supplied by the concerned respondent authorities to the audit party of the respondents and therefore, if an opportunity of being heard would have been given to the present petitioner by the concerned respondent authorities, it could have been pointed out by petitioner that the present petitioner was correctly promoted by order dated 15th May, 1989 on the post of Headmaster w.e.f. 1st January, 1988. It has submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that neither the office of the Accountant General has given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner nor the other respondents have given any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and an ex -parte conclusion has been arrived at by the respondents about the promotion of the present petitioner. Thus, there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order at Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition by respondent no. 4 dated 28th of March, 2003 and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the respondent no. 5, who has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 6, 7, 10 & 11 of his counter affidavit, which read as under: -