Shail Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1284 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4123 of 2021 ====================================================== Mala Sinha W/O- Shri Kedar Prasad Singh, Previously working as Pradhandhypika in Rajkiya Kanya Middle School, Chailitand Patna City, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
The Principal Secretary Education Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Director Secondary Education Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The C.B.I., through its Investigation Officer, Patna. 5.
The Regional Deputy Director of Education Patna Pramandal, Patna. 6.
The District Education Officer, Patna.
7.
The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1285 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5011 of 2021 ====================================================== Shail Kumari W/o Chandrashekhar Prasad, previously working as Pradhandhypika in Rajkiya Kanya Middle School Kamruddinganj, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The C.B.I. through its Investigation Officer, Patna. 5.
The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Pramandal, Patna. 6.
The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
7.
The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with
2/17 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1286 of 2023 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13989 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.
Sanju Kumari W/O- Anil Kumar Resident of Village- Mozaffara, P.O.- Bardih, P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda (Biharsharif) and previously working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kamruddinganj, Biharsharif, Nalanda 2.
Kumari Girija Sinha W/o Ramdeo Prasad, Resident of Village- Mangala Sthan, P.O.- Biharsharif, P.S.- Laheri, District- Nalanda and previously working as an Assistant Teacher in Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Kamruddinganj, Biharsharif, Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.
The Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.
The C.B.I., through its Investigation Officer, Patna. 5.
The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Pramandal, Patna. 6.
The District Education Officer, Patna.
7.
The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna. 8.
The District Education Officer, Nalanda.
9.
The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda. 10.
Kanak Lata, W/o Late Rakesh Ranjan Singh, Resident of Rose-Oxbridge, Kotgust Chowki, Uma Shankar Lane, P.s. Guljarbagh, Patna City, DistrictPatna and previously working as an Assistant Teacher in B.N.R. Training College, Patna.
11.
Shobha Kumari, D/o Shri Vilash Ray, Resident at B.N.R. Teaching Training College Quarter, Guljarbagh, Patna and previously working as an Assistant Teacher in B.N.R. Training College, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1284 of 2023) For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG 13 (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1285 of 2023) For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG 13 (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1286 of 2023) For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Rama Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Sarvesh Kr. Singh, AAG 13 ======================================================
3/17 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 20-04-2024 The present appeals are similar to that disposed of in LPA No. 1219 of 2023 (Kamini Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. & its analogous cases). The writ petitions from which the appeals arise, were cases in which the challenge was to the domestic enquiry proceedings initiated against teachers appointed long back, on allegations of their appointments having been made irregularly. The enquiries concluded with termination, some of which orders were once successfully challenged before this Court and again the very same consequence was visited on the teachers who were still in service; after a de novo proceedings as permitted by this Court. As against those who had retired; 100% of their pensions were withheld on the conclusion of enquiry proceedings. The domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated on the ground that the teachers who were the petitioners and the appellants, were appointed irregularly between 1980 to 1990.
2. In the earlier batch of writ petitions, it was noticed that in the year 1998 by reason of an order dated 18.12.1998
4/17 passed in a Public Interest Litigation; CWJC No. 9847 of 1998 (Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Ors Vs. the State of Bihar and Anr), there was a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out investigation into the alleged irregular appointments. The CBI submitted its report on 09.11.2004 before the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar; but no FIR was registered or any criminal proceedings were initiated. The Government slept over the matter despite receipt of the CBI report. In the year 2016, another PIL was filed numbered as CWJC No. 10002 of 2016 (Kaushal Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors) in which the State was called upon to apprise this Court as to what transpired after the CBI enquiry report was filed. This led to a spate of domestic enquiry proceedings which were carried out in total violation of the principles of natural justice and also absolute disregard of the principles governing domestic enquiries; as enjoined upon in the Bihar (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as also the Bihar Pension Rules.
3. A number of writ petitions were filed and a group of them in Shanti Kumari Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17904 of 2016) were disposed of on 17.01.2017 finding that the petitioners, therein, who were teachers were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to canvass their respective cases,
5/17 produce relevant documents and also the binding authorities relating to domestic enquiries. The Writ Court set aside the domestic enquiry proceedings and the termination orders passed, but left liberty to the State to proceed de novo with the enquiry proceedings.
4. It is based on such liberty reserved that the proceedings were taken against a number of teachers, some of whom had retired by the time the proceedings were initiated. Others who were reinstated in service by reason of the earlier writ proceedings having set aside the termination orders, were also proceeded with. Some of the writ petitions were filed against the proceedings initiated, others against the termination orders and many against the withholding of pension after retirement; which withholding was also of 100 per cent of applicable pension.
5. This Court in Kamini Kumari (supra) found that the proceedings against retired employees were against Rule-43(b) and Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Md. Idrish Ansari; 1995 Supp 3 SCC 6.
6. Following the declaration in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra), it was held that the right of withholding of pension or
6/17 any part of it permanently or for a specified period by virtue of Sub clause-(i) and (ii) of Clause-(a) of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules had to necessarily satisfy two requirements. One, that it can be instituted only with the sanction of the State Government and second, it can only be with respect to an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. All the proceedings which were taken up against the retired employees were with respect to the irregular appointments made between 1980 to 1990 far beyond the four-year period provided. There was also no sanction obtained from the State Government in any of the cases.
7. Reliance was also placed on Rule-139 which Rule was also interpreted in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra). Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, is extracted hereinbelow: - "Rule 139:- (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.
(c) The State Government reserve to themselves the powers of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory
7/17 or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall, however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed."
8. Following the forecited judgment; in Kamini Kumari (supra), it was held so in paragraph no. 25, which is extracted hereinbelow: - "25. We have to notice that there are two situations provided under Rule 139 as per clause (b) and clause (c), where there can be a reduction of pension. Clause (b) comes into play when the service is found to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. No such finding has been entered into any of the cases before us. Clause (c) relates to the power of revising an order of pension by the State Government, on the order being passed of any sub-ordinate authority. Therein also, there should be satisfaction, either that the pensioners service was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part, while in service.
There is no allegation of unsatisfactory service raised against any of the appellants, we recall. There is also no allegation of misconduct and what is alleged is an appointment having been obtained irregularly, which relates back to more than three decades. The disciplinary inquiry initiated itself is illegal for want of sanction and the incident complained of being far earlier to that provided under Rule 43(b); thus the initiation itself stands vitiated. The punishment imposed under Section 139(c) is also not sustainable, going by the Pension Rules. We have to set aside both the impugned orders in C.W.J.C. No.8020 of 2022."
8/17
9. Based on the above findings, it was held so in paragraph no. 31, extracted hereinbelow: - "31. We have to notice the Explanation to Rule 43 which saves the application of the requirement, as per the proviso to the Rules for sanction or for the misconduct to be one committed within four years prior to retirement. The Explanation deems valid, any disciplinary proceeding instituted by framing of charges or by putting the Government servant under suspension, from an earlier date, as properly instituted from that earlier date. The appellants were not suspended before retirement. Though, disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to retirement, the punishment imposed was set aside. De novo proceedings were permitted but despite opportunity so to do prior to retirement was available, no such proceedings were initiated till their retirement. The subsequent proceedings initiated hence, had to comply with the proviso to Rule 43(b). The proceedings are found to be illegally initiated and hence, the order of punishment also is liable to be set aside."
10. Further, it was noticed that even in the enquiry carried out, the CBI report was not produced and it was not marked through the officer who prepared it; which alone can be valid proof of the document, even in a departmental proceeding. Mere, tabulation of the irregularity alleged against each teacher was produced but not proved in the enquiry through a witness. It was also held so, in the matter of the CBI report and the proceedings taken pursuant to it in paragraph no. 42, extracted hereinbelow: - "42. At the risk of repetition, it has to be
9/17 stated that the appointments made in the year 1981, 1988 and 1989 were subjected to a CBI inquiry, the report of which was filed in the year 2004. Apparently no FIR was lodged and the reports submitted remained with the State Government, without any further action. It was long after, in the year 2016 that a Public Interest Litigation motivated the State Government into taking action. The order in the PIL only directed the State Government to take proceedings in accordance with law. We have found that the State Government had flouted all principles of fairness in disciplinary inquiry and also violated the specific rules of procedure as brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India."
11. Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570 was specifically noticed to reiterate that departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, the enquiry officer perform in a quasi-judicial function and the charges levelled against the delinquent requiring to be proved. The enquiry officer, it was held had a duty to arrive at a finding based on the materials brought on record by the parties. A mere report filed by the investigating officer cannot be treated as evidence in the disciplinary proceeding, especially when, no witness was examined to prove the documents, was the authoritative pronouncement.
12. Based on the aforesaid findings, this Court set aside the orders of terminations as also the orders of withholding pension and directed interest to be paid on failure to compute
10/17 the arrears and pay the same within four months as also awarded Rs. 5000/- as cost in the individual writ petitions.
13. We additionally observe that the allegations raised in the Enquiry Report of the CBI were that, an advertisement was not issued, candidates were not sourced from the Employment Exchange, reservation roster was not followed, sanction of the Competent authority was not obtained and there was no interview; in the appointment of the teachers who were proceeded with. These are allegations against the government officers who appointed the teachers and not necessarily a misconduct committed by the newly appointed teachers. Indisputably all the teachers who had service had an unblemished record and there was nothing revealed in their service regarding their incapacity to discharge their duties or disentitlement to be so appointed.
Re.: L.P.A. No. 1284 of 2023
14. The appellant herein was appointed and joined as Assistant Teacher on 16.11.1985 in the Government Girls Middle School, Bhabhua. By Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2006, the appellant was asked to show cause on the basis of CBI report finding irregularities in her appointment and submit explanation. The appellant filed reply by Annexure-5 dated 26.08.2006, but
11/17 no order was passed. A writ petition, CWJC No. 5569 of 2002, filed by the appellant for granting promotion, was allowed on 16.07.2010 (Annexure-2). On 08.02.2013, the 3rd Respondent recommended the promotion of the appellant.
15. The appellant was then served with a memo of charge in Prapatra 'K' by Annexure-7 dated 28.07.2017, on the basis of the CBI report, of which one page extract, relatable to the appellant, was furnished. The memo of charge dated 27.07.2017 is produced at page 62, to which the appellant filed her reply on 18.08.2017. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant by Annexure-8 dated 08.03.2018. A second show cause notice was issued on 25.09.2019 asking the appellant to file reply to which she submitted her reply on 03.03.2020 (Annexure-9).
16. The Director Secondary Education, by order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appellant from service, which order was challenged in CWJC No. 4123 of 2021 and the impugned order in the appeal rejected the writ petition.
17. It is stated that the enquiry report was submitted, but no enquiry report is produced. The CBI report was never furnished to the appellant nor marked in the enquiry proceedings. The appointment of the appellant carried out on
12/17 16.11.1985 was found to be irregular which finding was without any evidence. No witness was examined at the enquiry or the CBI report marked in evidence. This deprives the delinquent from cross-examining the witness and disproving the facts as coming out in the CBI report; which is the only basis of the allegation. The impugned order dated 21.09.2020 produced as Annexure-1 in CWJC No. 4123 of 2021 is the order dismissing the service of the appellant which will stand set aside.
18. The appellant was dismissed from service and while the proceedings before this Court were pending, she has attained the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, she will be considered as continuing in service from the date of her dismissal i.e 21.09.2020 and would be paid the entire pay and allowances till her date of superannuation.
19. The appellant would also be entitled to pension considering her services to be continuous, subject only to any other proceeding taken. Her pension will be computed on the basis of such continued payment of pay and allowances. Also, she would be paid arrears of pension from the date on which she superannuated. The appeal stands allowed setting aside the impugned judgment. The directions for payment and the interest shall be as directed in Kamini Kumari (supra). The appellant
13/17 shall be entitled to be paid Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost. Re.: L.P.A. No. 1285 of 2023
20. The appellant herein was appointed and joined as Assistant Teacher on 01.04.1985 in the Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Bettia. By Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2006, the appellant was asked to show cause on the basis of CBI report finding irregularities in her appointment, and submit explanation. The appellant filed reply 28.08.2006, but no order was passed. The writ petition being CWJC No. 5569 of 2002 filed by the appellant for granting promotion, was allowed on 16.07.2010 (Annexure-2). On 29.01.2011, the Respondent recommended the promotion of the appellant.
21. The appellant was then served with a memo of charge in Prapatra 'K' by Annexure-6 dated 28.07.2017, on the basis of the CBI report, of which one page extract, as relatable to the appellant, was furnished. The memo of charge dated 28.07.2017 is produced at page 63, to which the appellant filed her reply on 18.08.2017(Annexure-7). A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant by Annexure-8 dated 08.03.2018 asking the appellant to file reply as per charge memo in Prapatra 'K'. The appellant submitted her reply on 03.03.2020 (Annexure-9).
14/17
22. The Director Secondary Education, by order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appellant from service, which order was challenged in CWJC No. 5011 of 2021 and the impugned order in the appeal rejected the writ petition.
23. It is stated that the enquiry report was submitted, but no enquiry report is produced. The CBI report was never furnished to the appellant nor marked in the enquiry proceedings. The appointment of the appellant carried out on 01.04.1985 was found to be irregular which finding was without any evidence. No witness was examined at the enquiry or the CBI report marked in evidence. This deprives the delinquent from cross-examining the witness and disproving the facts as coming out in the CBI report; which is the only basis of the allegation. The impugned order dated 21.09.2020 produced as Annexure-1 in CWJC No. 5011of 2021, is the order dismissing the service of the appellant which will stand set aside.
24. The appellant has has attained the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, she will be considered as continuing in service from the date of her dismissal i.e 21.09.2020 and would be paid the entire pay and allowances till her date of superannuation. The appellant would also be entitled to pension considering her services to be continuous, subject
15/17 only to any other proceeding taken. Her pension will be computed on the basis of such continued payment of pay and allowances. Also, she would be paid arrears of pension from the date on which she superannuated. The appeal stands allowed setting aside the impugned judgment. The directions for payment and the interest shall be, as directed in Kamini Kumari (supra). The appellant shall be entitled to be paid Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
Re.: L.P.A. No. 1286 of 2023
25. The appellants herein were appointed and joined as Assistant Teacher on 05.01.1989 and 06.07.1992 respectively under the Lower Subordinate Services (Female Cadre) produced at Annexure-1. By Annexure-4 series dated 31.07.2006, the appellants were asked to show cause on the basis of CBI report finding irregularities in their appointment and submit explanation. The appellants filed their explanation by Annexure5 series.
26. Pursuant to the explanation, the appellants were terminated from service by order dated 24.08.2016 at Annexure7. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that this order of termination was issued in the year 2016; 10 years after the initial show cause, which was replied to by Annexure-5
16/17 series. The order of termination was set aside in CWJC No. 15713/2016 and CWJC No.15992 of 2016 vide judgment dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure-8), reserving liberty to proceed afresh.
27. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, by Annexure-8 dated 16.02.2017, the appellants were reinstated in service and a fresh proceeding was initiated. On 25.04.2017, one page memo of charge in Prapatra 'K' by Annexure-9 dated 11.04.2017 served to the appellants, to which the appellants submitted their reply by Annexure-10 series dated 02.05.2017.
28. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, by order dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure-1) dismissed the appellants from service, which order was challenged in CWJC No. 13989 of 2021 and the impugned order in the appeal rejected the writ petition.
29. It is stated that the enquiry report was submitted, but no enquiry report is produced. The CBI report was never furnished to the appellants nor marked in the enquiry proceedings. The appointment of the appellants was found to be irregular which finding was without any evidence. No witness was examined at the enquiry or the CBI report marked in evidence. This deprives the delinquent from cross-examining the witness and disproving the facts as coming out in the CBI
17/17 report; which is the only basis of the allegation. The impugned order dated 12.07.2021 produced at Annexure-1 in CWJC No. 13989 of 2021 is the order dismissing the service of the appellants, which will stand set aside.
30. The appellants as of now have not attained the age of retirement. As such, they are deemed to be reinstated in service from the date of their dismissal i.e. 12.07.2021 and they will be paid their entire salary and allowances from that date. The appeal stands allowed setting aside the impugned judgment. The directions for payment and the interest shall be as directed in Kamini Kumari (supra). The appellants shall be entitled to be paid Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Harish Kumar, J) Sujit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 01.05.2024 Transmission Date