Krishna Sinha vs The State of Bihar and Others

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.—Petitioner was the Headmaster of Sahid Ramanand Ram Govind Singh Inter Level School, Punpun at Patna. Soon after her superannuation, a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated against her for a set of charges relating to her failure to exercise control over the affairs of school as well as some financial irregularities from the funds made available for the development of the school. After due enquiry and order of punishment came to be passed against her by the Director, Secondary Education, which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The punishment was withholding of 5% pension. This order is dated 16.9.2010. Petitioner filed an appeal which was heard and decided by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar. He modified the order of punishment by his order dated 16.5.2013. Petitioner wants quashing of Annexure-5 as well as Annexure-7. The Principal Secretary modified the punishment of 5% withholding of pension to 2%.

When the matter was initially taken up a submission was made on the basis of the statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ application that in complete disregard of principles of natural justice on the basis of charges framed against the petitioner, order of punishment came to visit her. The proceeding and punishment order is, therefore, vitiated.

The Court wanted to verify the actual state of affairs by summoning the original record relating to the departmental proceeding held against the petitioner. After carefully going through the entire record, the Court has to record in no uncertain terms that the statement made in paragraph 14 does not state the correct state of affairs. Charges were framed, enquiry was held, evidence has been led, petitioner was given opportunity at every stage of enquiry and thereafter on second show cause, the order of punishment came to visit her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that probably no evidence was led in the enquiry. This fact is also belied from the materials available on record. In other words, the correct fact has not been indicated by the petitioner in the writ application with regard to the manner of enquiry which led to imposition of punishment.

In totality of things looking at the nature of the allegation and the finding which has emerged the Court feels that the petitioner has got away very lightly and only a token of punishment has come to visit her probably taking into consideration that she is a retired person and may be also a woman. Otherwise the nature of allegations coupled with the findings which has emerged could have to be (sic) her in more serious position, if she had still continued to be in service. The matter should be allowed to rest now because no infirmity as such seems to emerge from the material available with regard to the enquiry the findings as well as the token of a punishment imposed upon the petitioner. The Court, therefore, dismisses the writ application as no ground for interference is made out with the order of punishment either of the Director which has merged under the order of the Principal Secretary.