Jainath Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the Bihar Education Project. The petitioner is

aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-3 and the follow up order contained in Annexure-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

action was taken against the petitioner without compliance of the principles of natural justice and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. Referring to the judgment in CWJC No. 8579 of 2013 and analogous cases, he submitted that the subject matter of that case was the same

and noticing non- compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court passed order on 19.7.2013 in the following terms:-

“In order to expedite this exercise this Court would fix the date of 30th September, 2013 for the petitioners to appear in person before the Director,

Primary Education, whereafter the Director, Primary Education may hear the petitioners either on the same day or fix another date of enquiry and the

petitioners thereafter must participate in the enquiry on the date fixed without indulging into any delaying and /or evasive tactics.

In the event the Director, Primary Education finds any of the petitioners in indulging in to evasive or delaying tactics he will proceed ex - parte and

pass his orders. If, however, the petitioners remain present in course of enquiry, the Director, Primary Education will be under obligation to give them

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The entire exercise of holding enquiry and passing final order by the Director, Primary Education

must be completed by 31st December, 2013. Till such an exercise is completed none of the petitioners will be also not subjected to coercive action for

refunding the amount by way of recovery.

It is made clear that once such enquiry will be held by the Director, Primary Education there will be no need for holding of parallel enquiry by the

District Programme Officer. Therefore, the papers of the entire enquiry available with District Programme Officer will be sent to the Director,

Primary Education who shall now hold enquiry and pass his final order in accordance with law. The scope of such enquiry will be only confined to

alleged financial irregularity against the petitioners. The result of the enquiry, therefore, as per decision of the Director, Primary Education will bind

both the parties i.e. the authorities of the Bihar Education Project as also the petitioners.

The departmental proceeding, which has been initiated against the petitioners who happen to be permanent employees of the State of Bihar while

doing work of Bihar Education Project by way of contract during the period of deputation in Bihar Education Project, would remain stayed till a

categorical finding on financial irregularity is recorded by the Director, Primary Education against any of the petitioner. Such findings recorded by the

Director, Primary Education, however, could be utilized in the pending departmental proceeding wherein there may be more charges other than

financial irregularity against the petitioners.

Thus, for the time being the departmental proceeding against the petitioners shall remain in abeyance and once the Director, Primary Education will

take his final decision on or before 31st December, 2013 such order may be made available to the competent authority for taking further action against

the petitioners by way of continuation and conclusion of the departmental proceeding already launched against the petitioners, if necessary. It is also

made clear that the competent authority having received the order of the Director, Primary Education passed by him after holding enquiry against the

petitioners may also take a decision for not continuing with the departmental proceeding if there is no other serious charge against any of the

petitioners.â€​

Mr. Aditya Prakash Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the order dated 16.10.2017 passed in CWJC No. 499 of 2017 submitted that

the writ court has passed order for payment of authorized gratuity to the petitioner of that case. The relevant part of that order is quoted below:-

“Accordingly, I direct the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali (respondent no. 3) to make payment of duly sanctioned and

authorized gratuity to the petitioner, as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In

case, the respondent no.3 fails to pay gratuity to the petitioner within the afor-stated period of three months, the admissible amount of gratuity would

earn interest at the rate of seven per ent per annum from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. In such case of payment of interest,

the State Government shall be at liberty to recover the amount of interest from the officer/officers responsible for the delay caused in payment of

amount of gratuity in accordance with law.â€​

Accordingly, the respondents are hereby directed to take steps for payment of gratuity in similar terms as directed by order dated 16.10.2017 in

CWJC No. 499 of 2017. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.