Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1011 (PAT)

SANJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR

2018-07-11

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J. Heard Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.4.2014 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition whereby the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with by the District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hazipur. 3. Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh has raised the issue of competence of the District Education Officer in passing the order dated 10.04.2014. Referring to the Rule, he submits that the Rule does not authorise the District Education Officer to dismiss the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of appeal. 5. Considering the Rule applicable in the instant case, the Court is of the considered view that it does not authorize the District Education Officer to pass such order. Relevant part of Rule 21 is quoted below for ready reference. 1 & fuEu naM+] y?kq naM+ dh dksfV esa gksaxs%& d & psrkouh% [k & fuanu% x & osru o`f) ij vlap;kRed izHkko ls jksd% ?k & ljdkj dks gqbZ vkfFkZd {kfr dh olwyh% 2 & fuEu naM+ o`gr naM+ dh dksfV esa gksxs%& d & osru o`f) ijlap;kRd izHkko ls jksd [k & inkoufr x & lsokfoeqfDr ?k & lsok ls c[kkZLrxhA 3 & mifodkl vk;qDr ;k ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd iz/kkuk/;kidksa@f'k{kdksa ls Li"Vhdj.k izkIr dj] mu ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ y?kqnMa ns ldsaxsA 4 & o`gr~ naM+ nsus ds iwoZ ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] lapkyu inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu dks vkjksih iz/kkuk/;kid@f'k{kd ij rkfey djrs gq, muls naM+ ds fcanq ij f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk izkIr djsaxsA 5 & f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk ij viuk earO; vafdr djrs gq,] ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd] mi&fodkl vk;qDr ds le> lHkh vfHkys[k izLrqr djsaxs vkSj mi fodkl vk;qDr o`gr~ naM+ fu/kkZfjr djus gsrq l{ke gksxsaA 6 & mi&fodkl vk;qDr ds }kjk fn;k x;k naM+] ftyk&f'k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk lalwfpr fd;k tk,xkA ,oa blds vuqikyu dh lwpuk ftyk f'k{kk LFkkiuk lfefr dh vxyh cSBd esa nh tk,xhA 6. Under the aforesaid Rule, the Deputy Development Commissioner is authorized to inflict major punishment. In the instant case the punishment of termination has been inflicted by the District Education Officer, who is not authorized under the Rules and as such the order of termination cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order dated 10.04.2014, Annexure-7 to the writ petition is quashed. 7. Under the aforesaid Rule, the Deputy Development Commissioner is authorized to inflict major punishment. In the instant case the punishment of termination has been inflicted by the District Education Officer, who is not authorized under the Rules and as such the order of termination cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order dated 10.04.2014, Annexure-7 to the writ petition is quashed. 7. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and grant him consequential benefits within a maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The quashing of the order will not come in the way of the respondents in taking decision in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.