Renu Kumari and Others vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

This writ application is directed against the order dated 17-4-2000 issued vide Memo No. 3294 as contained in Annexure 1 whereby and whereunder the petitioners have been punished by withholding their three annual increments with cumulative effect.

It appears from the pleadings of the parties that all these four petitioners initially were put under suspension vide order as contained in Annexure 2 dated 10-1-2000 as they were found absent from the school on surprise inspection made by the District Magistrate, Patna. Formal show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the authorities considering their show cause, passed the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioners nor the charges were served upon them for which they have been found guilty and, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 is not sustainable in law.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 the District Superintendent of Education, Patna justifying the action, however, nowhere it is stated in the counter-affidavit that during continuance of the petitioner under suspension, they were subjected to disciplinary proceeding and an enquiry was held fastening the guilt upon them.

Rule 7 of Nationalised Elementary Schools (Transfer and disciplinary action) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) contemplates that in case of surprise inspection the teachers who are found absent, may be placed under suspension and they will be put to show cause and in case the show cause is not found to be satisfactory, the District Superintendent of Education will initiate a departmental proceeding against such teachers. From Annexure 2 to the writ application, it appears that while suspending the petitioners, a direction was issued for initiation of a departmental proceeding and obviously the order as contained in Annexure 2 was passed under the provisions of the Rules aforesaid putting the petitioners under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding.

Admittedly no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioners as required under Rule 7 of the Rules and the petitioners have been punished vide order as contained in Annexure 1. The order of punishment, in that view of the matter, must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.

In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 is set aside. The authorities, if so advised, may proceed in the matter in accordance with law.