AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.N.Pathak, J
Heard the parties.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the respondents have
passed an order of recovery from the salary of the petitioner.
It has been further argued that the teacher against whom allegation of appointment by way of forged certificate was levelled has already been
removed. The petitioner is ready to face departmental proceeding and co-operate with the respondent-authorities till the conclusion of the same.
On a query made by this Court to the State it has been admitted that departmental proceeding is still under process and the same has not been
concluded. During the pendency of the departmental proceeding the order dated 29.06.2020 has been issued which has been assailed by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner on two grounds:
i. The order is without jurisdiction as the Director Primary Education has no jurisdiction to pass orders against the employee who is in direct control of
the Director, Secondary Education as per the Rules.
ii. The person against whom allegation has been made has already been terminated from the service and departmental proceeding contemplated
against the petitioner is still under process.
In view of the submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is inclined to interfere in the writ petition. Respondents are directed to file counter-
affidavit within a period of six weeks.
Put up this case after six weeks.
In the meantime, implementation, operation and execution of the order dated 29.06.2020 as contained in memo No. 752 shall remain in abeyance as
far as it relates to recovery.