Geeta Kumari, W/o Shri Joginder Prasad Yadav vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; State;

respondent no. 8 and respondent no. 9 in his personal capacity.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the

following reliefs:

"i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus

commanding the Respondent authorities to pay up- to-date salary of the Petitioner which has been illegally stopped since February 2017 along with penal interest;

ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to implement their orders dated 08.11.2016 and 04.02.2017 and insure that complete handover of the charge of the school is given to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 10;

iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent authorities is contrary to the letter no. 3241 dated 30.12.2015 whereby directions/guideline has been issued which deals with the manner in which an In-charge Headmaster is to be appointed in the middle schools;

iv) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to enquire into the defalcation of money that is being done by the Respondent No. 10 by withdrawing huge sums of money without proper authorization and purpose;

v) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to initiate departmental proceedings against Respondent no. 10 who has repeatedly defied and disobeyed the orders of his superior officers which is nothing short of insubordination and dereliction of duty.

vi) To any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case."

Basically the issue involved was that though the

petitioner was made the Incharge Headmaster of Utkramit Middle

School, Pratap Mathia, Block-Sangrampur in the district of East

Champaran, but respondent no. 10, who was earlier designated as

Incharge was still continuing with the charge of Incharge

Headmaster. It appears that initially the respondent no. 10 was made

Incharge Headmaster by the respondent no. 9, by order dated

19.10.2016, upon superannuation of the erstwhile incumbent, but

subsequently, on a representation filed by the petitioner, the

respondent no. 9, by order dated 08.11.2016 made her Incharge

Headmaster in view of she being declared senior to the respondent

no. 10. However, despite such order being issued, the actual

transition on the ground, of the petitioner being given the powers,

including that of maintaining registers, was never passed over to her

and respondent no. 10 continued to discharge such functions, both on

the administrative as well as financial side. The respondent no. 3

intervened in the matter on the basis of representation filed by the

respondent no. 10 and by order dated 08.03.2017 directed the

respondent no. 9 to make fresh arrangement of Incharge Headmaster

in terms of the departmental circular and the order dated 08.11.2016

in favour of the petitioner was stayed. Thereafter , the respondent no.

9 again made the respondent no. 10 as Incharge Headmaster. In the

meantime, the petitioner being aggrieved, moved before the

respondent no. 7 and order dated 15.04.2017 was issued in favour of

the petitioner making her Incharge Headmaster on the administrative

side. The respondent no. 9, thereafter issued a letter making the

petitioner Incharge Headmaster by order dated 20.06.2017, but with

a rider that only administrative matters be dealt with by her and with

regard to financial powers, the same be exercised by the Headmaster

of another school. On 22.06.2017, after hearing the parties, the

Court had observed that the authorities shall file counter affidavit

and the State authorities shall ensure that the petitioner is allowed to

function as Incharge Headmaster without any let or hindrance from

any quarter to the extent that she is entitled to under any existing

policy/notification/circular of the State Government. The order was

never actually complied by the authorities and thus on 17.07.2017,

the Court had directed the District Magistrate, East Champaran to

himself report as to whether the allegation by the petitioner that

despite there being an order in her favour to act as Incharge

Headmaster of the school in question with regard to administrative

functions and another regular Headmaster of the neighboring school

being vested with financial power, it was the respondent no. 10, who

was still exercising both administrative and financial powers. In

terms of the said exercise, an exhaustive report has been brought on

record by way of affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, East

Champaran today. The same discloses grave irregularities and lapses

on the part of the respondent no. 9, which is well documented from

the papers and which clearly indicate that besides there being

violation of various circulars of the Government, even the order of

the High Court was not acted upon/complied with. In this

connection, learned counsel for the State has submitted that

appropriate action shall be taken against the then respondent no. 9

and as an interim measure, he has already been shifted back to the

teaching side and is no more the Block Education Officer. It was

submitted that such action shall be taken expeditiously to its logical

conclusion in right earnest. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it

has been stated that now she is exercising all administrative powers

as per the notification of the State Government. However, it has

been stated that the regular Headmaster of an adjoining school is the

person responsible for all financial transactions. The respondent no.

7, who is present in Court stated that the petitioner and other

similarly situated persons have also been paid their salary on the

basis of attendance marked in the separate register maintained by the

petitioner and that the same shall be regularized and shall not be held

against her in future. He has also clarified that as and when grants

come, payments are made and salary for the month of April has

already been paid. He has assured the Court that as and when and to

the extent other teachers are paid, the petitioner shall also be paid,

without any discrimination.

The petitioner, who was also incidentally present,

has countered the charge against her by the State authorities that she

comes from a long distance and often she is absent and invariably

late. She has submitted through her counsel that she lives less than a

kilometer away in rented accommodation near the school though her

permanent address is in the town of Motihari. She has assured the

Court that there shall be no occasion in future for complaint with

regard to her coming late and not living near the school and also not

devoting the time required in the school.

The then respondent no. 9, who is present in Court

has accepted that there have been mistakes and lapses on his part,

and both him and his counsel have prayed to the Court to forgive

him with the assurance that he shall not give any opportunity of any

complain in future. In view of such assurance, despite the Court

being of the opinion that strict orders be passed against him, refrains

from doing so in the present case.

However, Mr. Arun Kumar, the then Block

Education Officer, Turkolia, East Champaran is cautioned to be

careful in future, both with regard to the discharge of his official

duties and more particularly with regard to the orders passed by the

Courts.

It goes without saying that any investigation and

action shall not be restricted only with regard to the then respondent

no. 9, but shall also take into ambit the role of all concerned,

including the respondent no. 10, who has blatantly and openly

exercised both administrative and financial power, despite him not

being entitled in law.

Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that

action has already been initiated against the respondent no. 10,

which would be clear from the direction given by the respondent no.

7 to the respondent no. 9 to initiate action by the District

Employment Unit against the respondent no. 10. It is expected that

both the respondent no. 7 and the present respondent no. 8 shall

ensure that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion against the

respondent no. 10 as well.

The writ petition stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

The appearance of the officers stand dispensed

with.