Hirdaya Nand Pandey vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The orders as contained in annexures-10 and 13 dated 10.3.2003 and 2.11.2004/17.11.2004 respectively are under challenge.

Vide order as contained in annexure-10, punishments were imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report and by annexure-13 the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishments was dismissed.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that it would be manifest from annexure-10 that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad, Respondent No. 4 revoked the order of suspension passed against the petitioner and imposed certain punishments vide orders dated 28.2.2003/ 5.3.2003 and the orders were communicated by the District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad, Respondent No. 5. It is further contended that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Aurangabad was the enquiry officer which would be evident from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and since the D.D.C. was the enquiry officer he could not have become the disciplinary authority. It is also contended that even the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner.

From annexure-10 it appears that the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by virtue of the orders passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner. At the same time, it appears from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that at a subsequent stage of enquiry the District Magistrate, Aurangabad changed the enquiry officer and authorised the Deputy Development Commissioner to enquire into the matter.

In view of the facts, as noticed above, it appears that the Deputy Development Commissioner became the Judge of his own cause. The orders impugned as contained in annexures-10 and 13 are not sustainable in law. This application is accordingly allowed. Orders impugned as contained in annexures-10 and 13 are set aside.