SMT.DEWANTA DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

from the writ petition and learned counsel for the parties are unable to inform this Court as to whether the appointments were made before the petitioner was elected as Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. However, the admitted position is that the petitioner had signed on the appointment letters issued to the teachers. Subsequently, it appears - 2 - that the petitioner took the stand that the appointments were illegal on account of large scale irregularities being committed in the process of recruitment. The matter was ultimately inquired by the Block Development Officer in view of the powers conferred upon him under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The Block Development Officer found that the appointment of the teachers was legal and valid but the petitioner as Mukhiya has illegally withheld the payment of salary and allowances. Letters were issued by the Block Development Officer on

10.12.2007 to the petitioner to make the payment but the same was not made. Again it appears that in presence of the District Magistrate and the other officials of the District, the petitioner signed the cheques for the payment of salary and allowances of the said Panchayat Teachers but subsequently on 16.3.2008 the petitioner wrote to the bank to stop payment of the cheque. In view of the records, the District Superintendent of Education vide order dated 27.5.2008 directed the petitioner to make the payment of the salary stating that the funds for the said purpose had already been made available, yet the petitioner was not making the payment. Ultimately, the District Magistrate, Buxar sought an explanation from the petitioner and by his letter dated

24.7.2008, the petitioner again reiterated the stand regarding the appointment of Panchayat Teachers being irregular and alleged that her forged signature has been taken. The District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner are prima facie contrary to the facts and without any basis because she has not - 3 - taken any action against the guilty employees and she seems to be illegally inclined not to make payment to the teachers. On the basis of the said materials an explanation was sought for from the petitioner by the State Government as to why she should not be removed under the provisions of Section 18(5) of the Act by letter dated 26.12.2008. The petitioner in her explanation dated 13.1.2009 reiterated her stand that the appointment was illegal. On a consideration of the aforesaid matters, the State Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner had misused her powers and had refused and neglected to perform her duties and accordingly she had illegally deprived the validly appointed Panchayat Teachers of their salary and allowances. For the said reason the impugned order dated 26.2.2009 removing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits impugned order is bad in law since it does not consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 13.1.2009. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the Panchayat Secretary had himself informed the petitioner regarding the missing of the records relating to appointment of Panchayat Teachers, the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the appointments were illegal and accordingly not willing to make payment of salary and allowances to such teachers and had further stated in her reply that if it was so ordered on the consideration of her explanation then she would be willing to accept the order for making payment of salary, and therefore the order of removal ought not to have been passed. - 4 - Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the allegation of the petitioner regarding illegal appointment was considered by the statutory authority under the Rules, namely, the Block Development Officer and he came to the conclusion that the appointments were valid. It is submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the same and deprive such validly appointed teachers of their salary and allowances for several years from the inception of the appointment in the year 2006. It is further submitted that the action of the petitioner in issuing the cheque pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate on 6.3.2009 in presence of the District Magistrate and officers of the Government and subsequently directing the bank for stopping of payment clearly shows the mala fide action of the petitioner and shows her unfitness to hold any public office. The said action of the petitioner itself shows fraudulent act on her part and attempt not to accept any decision of any duly constituted authority so as to deny the salary of the Panchayat Teachers in question. Learned counsel also points out that after first admitting that she had signed the appointment letters of the Panchayat Teachers, the petitioner took a false stand in her explanation before the Government that her signatures had been forged, which shows the attitude of the petitioner. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is inclined to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the State. It is no doubt true that the petitioner as the Mukhiya was entitled to take a plea that the appointment of the teachers was not - 5 - valid but under the Rules she does not have power to finally decide the matter and the said power is conferred upon the Block Development Officer; once the Block Development Officer, after enquiry, found that the appointment was valid then the petitioner should have accepted the said decision and made the payments. Not only she refused to do so and repeatedly disobeyed the directions of the authorities in this regard but she also after issuing a cheque on the basis of the direction of the District Magistrate and in front of him and other officials of the Government, in a fraudulent manner had stopped payment of cheque. This action of the petitioner would itself be sufficient to make her unfit to hold a public office. This Court is also surprised with the changing stand taken by the petitioner before the District Superintendent of Education in her letter dated 10.7.2007 (Annexure-1) in which she admits that she had signed the appointment letter, and the subsequent explanation submitted before the State Government in which she had made the allegation on 13.1.2008 that her signatures on the appointment letters were forged. The plea of the petitioner that in her explanation before the State Government she has expressed her willingness to accept the order and make the payment can be of no consequence since the said proceedings do not at all relate to payment of salary to the teachers but to her own removal from the post of Mukhiya for refusing to pay salary of teachers found to have been validly appointed on account of her whims and fancies and contrary to the finding of the statutorily authorized officer. There could be no question of dropping the - 6 - proceedings on such a belated plea taken by the petitioner when earlier she repeatedly refused to make the payments and had even wrongly ordered for stoppage of payment of the cheque issued by her on the basis of the direction issued by the higher authorities. In the light of the above discussions this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been rightly removed under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 by the State Government. Thus, there is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)