Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11471 of 2013 ====================================================== Kishori Thakur Son Of Sri Bigu Thakur Resident Of Village And P.O.- Harnathpur, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran, Mukhiya-Cum- Chairman, Panchayat Niyojan Samiti, Gram Panchayat Raj Dhanauji, Block- Pakaridayal, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, District East Champaran At Motihari 3. The Block Development Officer, Pakridayal, Dist.- East Champaran 4. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Dhanauji, Block Pakridayal, District- East Champaran 5. Member, District Teachers' Employment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran, Motihari 6. Subodh Kumar Singh Son Of Late Bachcha Singh Resident Of Village- Dhanauji, P.S.- Pakridayal, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan For the Respondent/s : Mr. GP16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 27-06-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer in this writ application has been made to the following effect: “(i) Issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the part of the impugned order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the respondent District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Tribunal, in Case No. 815 of 2011 (as contained in Annexure 5) whereby and whereunder it has illegally and erroneously held that the order passed by the Panchayat Raj Dhanauji, East Champaran, terminating the services of the respondent Subodh Kumar Singh to be illegal and has set aside even though the order was passed by the Niyojan Samiti in accordance with law after considering all the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.11471 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 2 facts and developments and issues involved in the matter; in fact the respondent Subodh Kumar Singh had absented himself from the services for nearly six months whereas the provision for removal on continuous absence is only three months and all actions have been taken/ done after service of notice on him. (ii) Issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Appellate Tribunal not to exceed its jurisdiction in considering the matter relating to teachers’ appointment and to act and pass order in accordance with law. (iii) Issuance of any other appropriate writ for declaring the impugned order as illegal and erroneous as the respondent Appellate Tribunal erroneously held that no opportunity was given to the respondent Subodh kumar Singh for refuting the charge of unauthorized absence before terminating him although proper opportunity was given to him for refuting the charge of unauthorized absence before passing the termination order.”
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner a Mukhiya of Raj Dhanauji Gram Panchayat, has submitted that the Tribunal in the impugned order has committed an error of record in holding that the principles of natural justice were not followed while terminating the service of respondent no.6. He has further submitted that even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted that the earlier termination of service of respondent no.6 was in violation of the principles of natural justice the Tribunal ought to have at least given liberty to the petitioner in Patna High Court CWJC No.11471 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 3 capacity of Mukhiya to move afresh against respondent no.6 in the event the competent authority could have found respondent no.6 to have again committed some misconduct necessitating his removal from service. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has supported the finding of the Tribunal and would submit that recording liberty for taking fresh action against respondent no.6 would not be desirable at this stage, inasmuch as power of taking such action against the employee by the competent authority is always there. In the considered opinion of this Court the Tribunal’s order cannot be faulted either on fact or in law so far it relates to reinstatement of respondent no.6. The Tribunal has found that the principles of natural justice were not at all adhered to before removal of respondent no.6. To that extent the following finding of the Tribunal would clinch the aforesaid issue, inasmuch as after detailed discussion the Tribunal has recorded that: ^^9- ;|fi izfroknhx.k us ifjf’k"V&8 ds }kjk i=kad&31 fnukad 18-10-2008 ds i= ds Nk;kizfr nkf[ky dh gS] ftlds }kjk vihydRRkkZ ls vuqifLFkr ds laca/k es a Li"Vhdj.k ekaxk x;k gS] vkSj ml ij vihydRrkZ dk gLrk{kj fnukad 20-10-2008 dk i= izkfIr ds laca/k esa fy[kk gqvk gSA yfdu vihydRrkZ bl rF; dks bUdkj djrs gSA vkSj mDr i= ij tks mudk gLrk{kj gS] mls QthZ ,oa xyr dgrs gSa bl lanHkZ esa vihydRrkZ us fnukad 05-04-2011 ds vkosnu rFkk mlds lkFk nkf[ky ’kiFk&i= tks vihydRrkZ dk gLrk{kj gS] mDr gLrk{kj ,oa fy[kkoV rFkk dfFkr Li"Vhdj.k ekaxus dk i= fnukad 18-10-2008 ij Patna High Court CWJC No.11471 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 4 fd;s x;s vihydRrkZ ds gLrk{kj ,oa fy[kkoV ls dkQh fHkUu gSA blfy, vihydRRkkZ dk dFku lgh ik;k tkrk gSA nwljh ckr vihydRrkZ }kjk ftyk inkf/kdkjh] iwohZ pEikj.k dks fn;s x;s vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] idM+hn;ky ls izfrosnu ekaxk x;k] tks fnukad 06-02-2010 dks mUgksaus fn;k gSa vkSj vius izfrosnu esa iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh us iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr }kjk vihydRrkZ ls Li"Vhdj.k ugha ekaxus dk fooj.k fn;k gSA blls Hkh Li"V gks tkrk gS fd iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh us vius tkap esa izfroknhx.k }kjk rFkk&dfFkr fnukad 18-10-2008 dks Li"Vhdj.k dk i= Hkstus dh ckr xyr fln~/k gks tkrh gSa D;ksafd vxj oLrqr% ;g rF; lgh gksrk rks iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh }kjk tkap esa ik;s tkrk rFkk muds tkap izfrosnu esa ikjk 1 esa ;g ugha fy[kk tkrk fd fcuk Li"Vhdj.k iwNs fdls ds mij dkjZokbZ djuk izkd‘frd U;k; ds fo:n~/k gSA rhljh ckr ;g gS fd rFkk&dfFkr Li"Vhdj.k dk i= fnukad 18-10-2008 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mDr i= ds var esa fu;kstu lfefr us vihydRRkkZ dks nks fnuksa ds vUnj Li"Vhdj.k nsus dks dgk gSa vkSj nks fnu ds ckn gh vFkkZr 20-10-2008 dks mlij viyhdRRkkZ dk rFkk&dfFkr gLrk{kj] i= ds izfr ikus ds lac/k esa fd;k gqvk gSaA ;g rF; Hkh vihydRrkZ ds dFku dk leFkZu djrk gSA oLrqr% vihydRRkZk ls muds fo:n~/k yxk;s vkjkiksa rFkk muds fu;kstu jn~n djus ds dkjZokbZ ds iwoZ dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vihydRrkZ ls ugha ekaxk x;k FkkA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gwW fd iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr us vihydRRkkZ ls dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha ekaxk Fkk] cfYd ,d gh frfFk dks vFkkZr 28-11-2008 dh dk;Zokgh esa gh vkjksi yxkrs gq, vkSj vkjksi ij viuk QSlyk nsrs gq, viyhdRrkZ dks 28-11- 2008 ls iapk;r f’k{kd ds lsok ls eqDr dj fn;ka vr% Li"V gS fd iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr us Natural Justice ds fu;e dk mYya?ku djrs gq, vihydRRkkZ ds fu;kstu dks jn~n fd;k gSA tks dkuwuh :i ls xyr ,oa vekU; gSA vr% ek= bl rF; ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu lfefr ds }kjk fnukad 28-11-2008 ds vkns’k ds vk/kkj ij vihydRrkZ dk fu;kstu tks jn~n fd;k x;k gS og voS/k ,oa vekU; ?kksf"kr djrs gq,] mDr vkns’k jn~n ,oa fujLr ;ksX; gSA** Patna High Court CWJC No.11471 of 2013 (2) dt.27-06-2013 5 Having regard to the aforementioned finding it has to be necessarily held that the Tribunal has made best of its endeavors to examine the plea of service of alleged show cause notice, as contained in Annexure 4, and the consequential finding recorded thereon can not be interfered by this Court. Such finding of fact cannot be reappraised by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of appeal. The grievance of the petitioner that the Tribunal has not given any liberty for taking action against respondent no.6 presupposes that such a prayer was made and was declined. There is, however, nothing on record to show that any such prayer was made by the petitioners before the Tribunal. This Court, however, must clarify that the employer always has a power to take punitive action against the employee in case the employee commits any misconduct. Thus, if respondent no.6 in future will commit any serious misconduct which will necessitate taking action against him, the impugned order of the Tribunal or for that purpose this order as well shall not come in the way for taking fresh action against respondent no.6. Subject to the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-