Brijesh Kumar Upadhyay vs The State of Bihar

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel No. 10 on behalf of the State. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.11.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 4, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Block Teacher, upgraded middle school, Huzhuzipur on the ground of his involvement in forged withdrawal of Rs. 30,04,000.00 (rupees thirty lacs four thousand) for which he has been named in a criminal case being Andar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2011.

Referring to the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Deputy Development Commissioner did not have any authority to pass the impugned order. He contends, referring to the Bihar Panchayat Elementary (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 that the Deputy Development Commissioner has no authority under the said Rules to take any action against a Block Teacher. He further contends that as per Rule 17(11) of the said 2006 Rules, Committee constituted under Rule-9(7) of the Rules only can take a disciplinary action which Committee consists of the Pramukh of the Panchayat Samati, its Executive Officer, Member of the Panchayat Samiti and the Block Education Extension Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that before recording the petitioner''s guilt for which punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed, regular enquiry/Departmental Promotion Committee was imperative which was not held and for that reason also, the impugned order is bad.

I find substance in submission made on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Development Commissioner did not have any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The impugned order is accordingly quashed being beyond jurisdiction.

The petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith. The competent committee constituted under Rule-9(7) of the said 2006 Rules shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law and take final decision thereupon.

This application is allowed accordingly. The petitioner''s claim for back wages will depend upon the decision of the Committee constituted under Rule-9(7) of the said 2006 Rules. If the Committee intends to initiate disciplinary action against him, it must be initiated within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and it should be concluded within a period of six months thereafter.