ARBIND v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

the first time on receipt of second show cause notice the petitioner submitted his show cause. However, second show cause submitted by the petitioner has not been annexed with the writ application. From the second show cause the allegation regarding non furnishing of enquiry report could have been gathered. Petitioner submitted his second show cause and thereafter again date of hearing were fixed on different dates as stated in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. Despite several dates fixed for giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner he did not turn up and finally the dismissal order has been passed. Petitioner in the writ application has suppressed this fact that he has preferred appeal against the order of dismissal passed in the departmental proceeding, but in the counter affidavit it is stated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner and Secretary department of Primary & Adult Education has also been dismissed.

There is no prayer of the petitioner for quashing the order passed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner however has submitted that there is no provision for statutory appeal and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was misconceived due to wrong advise as such the order passed by the appellate authority will not affect in any 9 way to the petitioner. I do not find substance in this submission. Once appeal preferred, and order has been passed by the appellate authority, it will amount confirmation of the dismissal order Petitioner’s case is that the charge framed in the criminal case and the departmental proceeding are identical. It is also stated that the payments were made by the petitioner only to the legally appointed teachers, who filed C.W.J.C.No.8412 of 1991 (Krishna Prasad Dutt and ors-Vrs-State of Bihar and others). In case of non compliance of order preferred M.J.C.No.1616 of 1993.

This statement is falsified from the memo of charge. The memo of charge indicates that in C.W.J.C.No.8412 of 1991 there were only 32 petitioners and direction of the court was to make payment to 32 petitioners. However, payment was made by the petitioner as drawing and disbursing authority to 87 persons, when only 32 were legally appointed teachers. In the criminal case charges could not be proved as all relevant documents were kept by the petitioner and those documents could not be produced by the prosecution in support of the charges. This was one of the reason for acquittal of the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding also repeatedly petitioner was asked to submit relevant records, but he neither produced the record nor himself participated in the proceeding. This has become a normal practice of government employees, not to participate in the departmental proceeding and after the departmental proceeding concluded, punishment awarded, they challenge entire proceeding on the ground that it has been conducted 10 in violation of rule of natural justice.