Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1267 (PAT)

Shambhu Nath Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2014-12-19

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
ORDER 1. Petitioner is a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Khalgaon, in the district of Gopalganj. He has been compelled to approach the High Court and assail a decision rendered by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj in Appeal No.23 of 2013, decided on 23.12.2013. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Tribunal is not only erroneous but also illegal, therefore, is required to be set aside. The order impugned is Annexure- 4 to the writ application. 2. The facts leading to the said adjudication and the order are that private respondent no.7, Smt. Pushpa Kumari was appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra way back in the year 2005. After due selection, she joined and started working and by virtue of a deeming fiction in law in the year 2006, she became a Panchayat Teacher effective 1.7.2006. She continued to work in that capacity and was officiating as the Headmaster of the institution known as Primary School Batal Chowrah without any let or hindrance. The present petitioner suddenly decided to stop payment of her salary in the year 2011. It is relevant to incorporate in this order that when the private respondent was selected and appointed, petitioner was the Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat and it was under his chairmanship that such selection was made of the private respondent. It is only on his return as a Mukhiya for second time in the year 2011 that the dispute with regard to payment of salary to the private respondent started. 3. The private respondent made many a complaints before the authorities including the District Magistrate and other subordinate authorities of the Education Department on the issue of non-payment of salary. Repeated directions came to be issued upon the petitioner for making payment to her but nothing came to be done. Since the private respondent no.7 was persistent in pressing her rightful claim this irked the petitioner, who passed an order for her removal from service. The private respondent had no option but to take shelter before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj. The Appellate Authority has taken detailed note of the background of the dispute, the selection and appointment of the private respondent, the kind of manipulation and forgery sought to be committed by the present petitioner, including using certain forged documents in quasi judicial proceeding before the Tribunal. The Appellate Authority has taken detailed note of the background of the dispute, the selection and appointment of the private respondent, the kind of manipulation and forgery sought to be committed by the present petitioner, including using certain forged documents in quasi judicial proceeding before the Tribunal. All kinds of efforts was made to justify the decision of non-payment of salary as well as the order of removal passed against the private respondent, before the Tribunal. The detailed order has been placed both by the petitioner as well as the senior counsel representing the private respondent. The conduct of the petitioner which has been taken note of in the adjudication does not behold the status and the post which the present petitioner is holding as an elected representative of the Panchayat. 4. All this led to setting aside of the order of removal of the private respondent as well as a direction for payment of salary within one month. An obligation to pay 18% interest, if the payment was not made within one month of passing of the order dated 23.12.2013, was also created. 5. The petitioner instead of complying with the order has approached the High Court by filing the present writ application. 6. The stand of the counsel representing the petitioner is that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on the post on some kind of manipulation done by her with regard to her marks obtained in the Intermediate. Her appointment as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was per se wrong and on the basis of a communication received from the District Magistrate, Gopalganj a meeting was held on 15.8.2013 of the Panchayat and in terms of the decision taken therein the order for her removal was taken. The justification for doing so is evident from reading of the resolution so recorded. 7. He also submits that the decision taken by the Panchayat was in the interest of the administration as well as the school in question where the private respondent was wrongly appointed and continuing in that capacity, all these years. 8. The justification for doing so is evident from reading of the resolution so recorded. 7. He also submits that the decision taken by the Panchayat was in the interest of the administration as well as the school in question where the private respondent was wrongly appointed and continuing in that capacity, all these years. 8. The issues so raised with regard to validity and correctness of the order of the Tribunal could have merited consideration provided there was some correlation between the time frame when the selection of the private respondent was done by the petitioner himself in the year 2005 and the issue of wrongful appointment which is being raised in the year 2011. 9. The law is already decided by this Court that once a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra became a Panchayat Teacher, any issue with regard to the validity or illegality related to the said selection cannot be reopened. Under what understanding of law the petitioner has removed the private respondent now when she started asserting her right for payment of salary, which was illegally withheld by the petitioner, is not being understood or fully explained. 10. The findings given by the Tribunal in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 are significant. In fact, if the Court takes a serious view of those findings then there is element of criminality also emerging against the petitioner for using forged document to sully the adjudication before a quasi judicial authority. The finding of the Tribunal that no order or communication of the District Magistrate was produced before them despite repeated demand. The said communication was supposed to have formed the basis for removal of the private respondent. It has not been produced even before this Court. Therefore, the finding in this regard of the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. In fact, there could be an occasion for the District Magistrate to enquire whether any kind of communication or letter has originated at the level of his office, which is letter no.1505 (C) dated 7.8.2013. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly inferred that on a non- existent communication or letter a decision for removal was taken by and at the instance of the present petitioner. 11. There is yet another significant finding recorded that an unsigned application and document was produced before the Tribunal to show how fraud was committed by the private respondent at the initial stage of her selection. 11. There is yet another significant finding recorded that an unsigned application and document was produced before the Tribunal to show how fraud was committed by the private respondent at the initial stage of her selection. This Court can only record that if at all there was some forgery and manipulation then it was done with active connivance of the present petitioner because he was the chairman of the committee, which made the selection of the private respondent. This Court also holds that the finding of the Tribunal that the so-called document produced was an unreliable piece of document and the charge of forgery could not be established against the private respondent. The Tribunal has further held that in the above circumstances the action of the petitioner of non- payment of salary to the private respondent as well as her removal was a totally unjustified and illegal decision. Her case or complaint was allowed with a direction to pay salary to the private respondent within a month, if not, payment of 18% interest thereon by the petitioner. 12. Learned senior counsel representing the private respondent submits that it is a case of illegal action of the petitioner, who is trying to justify his conduct before various judicial forums without there being any substantive basis to do so. He has a personal grudge against the private respondent and therefore, he has approached the High Court. He has cited instances even from reading of the order under challenge, as well as from materials annexed with the counter affidavit to press the charge of malafide against the petitioner for not paying her salary from the year 2011 as well as passing an order of termination. 13. That the facts being what they are the Court does come to a considered opinion that the conduct of the petitioner as well as the manner in which he has acted for denying the legitimate claim of the private respondent by first withholding salary and then dismissing or removing her from the post is an illegal decision per se and the Tribunal has rightly come to that conclusion. The order in question/ impugned is not required to be interfered with in any manner. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, is upheld in toto. 14. The order in question/ impugned is not required to be interfered with in any manner. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, is upheld in toto. 14. Let a copy of this order be marked to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, who will look into the matter, may be hold an enquiry with regard to the conduct of this petitioner as a Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat as well as such other materials, which have been talked about in the order of the Tribunal and if this amounts to misconduct, he may also initiate a proceeding for his removal. 15. The writ application is otherwise dismissed. 16. The Court also imposes a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner for malafidely pursuing the matter at various stages with a personal motive and bias, which is evident from the findings emerging from the adjudication, the materials and the pleadings, which have come in the present writ application as well. The above amount must be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of eight weeks from today or else the District Magistrate may recover the same as land revenue by initiating a certificate proceeding against him.