Parvati Devi v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15428 of 2012 (5) dt.16-05-2013 well as full retrial dues but under identical situation the original writ petitioner was denied of those and that this what brought the petitioner to this Court. The facts are not in dispute. It appears that there was some dispute between the petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha with the then Principal of the said School. Principal lodged a first information report as against petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha. Patitioner aqnd Yatindra Nath Sinha also lodged a separate first information report as against the principal. Consequent to, the principal’s first information report disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha and both of them because of criminal charges and charges identical to the criminal case having been found good were dismissed from service. It may be noted here that so far as criminal case as instituted by the petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha as against the principal is concerned that resulted in the conviction of the said principal. It is reported that he is no more. In the criminal case ultimately as against the petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha they were acquitted as charges could not be proved. While the criminal trial was pending upon petitioner and Yatindra Nath Sinha being dismissed, they filed appeal. Both the appeals were dismissed. Upon their acquittal in the criminal case both of them filed application before the Managing Committee reconsideration. The Managing Committee which is at Patna referred the matter to the Governing Body as it was the Governing body that has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and Sri Sinha. The Governing Body considering their acquittal passed an order for recalling the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15428 of 2012 (5) dt.16-05-2013 order of dismissal and payment accordingly and remitted the matter to the Managing Committee at Patna. In affect as what the order of the Governing Body was that the order of dismissal stood cancelled deeming petitioner and Sri Sinha to be reinstated and consequentially retiring as in service. As nothing was being done at the level of Managing Committee both of them filed separate writ petition before this Court. Both the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Director, Secondary Education to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders. As usual the Director, Secondary Education slept. Contempt application was filed by both the persons. In the contempt matter the Director undertook to reconsider the matter. Upon reconsideration the Director in the case of Yatindra Nath Sinha ordered on 27.3.2012 which is part of annexure-10 series effectively recalled the order of dismissal and directed for payment of salary dues as well as retrial dues immediately. Later on it appears that when it came to petitioner’s case the Director held that earlier the petitioner had moved the Governing Body wrongly it ought to have moved the Managing Committee who had passed the original order, this is what has challenged in the present writ petition which is annexure-5 to the writ petition. Today a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 from that it appears that the matter was brought to the notice of the District Education Officer who has issued letter on 9.5.2013 (annexure-11). He is respondent no.2 in the writ petition. After noticing the writ proceedings an affidavit being filed stating therein that having examined the matter the Managing Committee should not have passed the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15428 of 2012 (5) dt.16-05-2013 order once they had dismissed the petitioner. What he mean is that there should not have been any order of reinstatement for payment of retrial dues though he is aware that he is party respondent in the writ petition, he has not filed any affidavit and took stand before this Court in the matter. Thus this court is yet to decide as to what is to be done. From the facts noted above, it is clear that there is no distinction between the case of Yatindra Nath Sinha and the petitioner. In the case of Sri Sinha ultimately he was given the benefit of acquittal of criminal case and when initiated the contempt proceeding before this court, his order of dismissal was recalled and he got the benefit of back wages and retrial dues. Petitioner has been running from pillar to post and ultimately he died. I fail to understand why people become so technical in the matters. There is no dispute by the State or the School Managing Committee that there is no distinction between Yatindra Nath Sinha and the petitioner and if this is so then it would be highly arbitrary if not unfair not to meet the same treatment to both of them. Both of them were acquitted by the criminal court in the same proceeding. Thus in my view, what happened with Sri Sinha must also be happened to the petitioner. Thus, I direct that the petitioner has to receive the same treatment in the same manner as Sri Yatindra Nath Sinha. Learned counsel for the School and the Management states that all papers with regard to service and criminal proceedings of petitioner has already been sent to the District Education Officer and as such it is for the District Education Officer now to pass orders sanctioning payments. In view 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.15428 of 2012 (5) dt.16-05-2013 of the facts noted above, I direct the District Education Officer to quantify the salary dues and retrial dues of the original writ petitioner within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order and ensure payment to his widow treating the order of dismissal to be recalled. With the aforesaid observation and direction in the hope that there be no further contempt proceeding for non- compliance or delayed compliance this writ petition is disposed of. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) M.Rahman/-