- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Birendra Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Teacher in 1988 by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, continued in service until his salary was stopped in December 2002 pursuant to a direction issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar. This direction instructed the District Education Officer, Gaya, to lodge First Information Reports (F.I.R.) against the Headmaster and teachers who allegedly obtained appointments based on forged documents, initiate departmental proceedings against the Headmaster, and withhold salary payments to the affected teachers, including the petitioner. The petitioner challenged these communiques by filing a writ application seeking quashing of the impugned directions. The respondent authorities filed counter affidavits stating that an enquiry had been conducted, the appointments of the petitioner and others were found to be void ab initio, and accordingly, salary payments were stopped and legal action initiated without giving any prior notice to the petitioner.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the authorities had jurisdiction to stop the petitioner’s salary without terminating his services or providing an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by withholding salary without prior notice or departmental action against the petitioner.
- Whether salary can be withheld after completion of enquiry but prior to formal termination of services.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner was validly appointed by a competent authority and has been continuously serving since 1988.
- The authorities lacked jurisdiction to stop his salary without departmental proceedings or termination of service.
- No F.I.R. had been lodged against the petitioner, nor had any notice been given to him to explain his conduct.
- The impugned directions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violated principles of natural justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Enquiry was conducted as per directions, which found the petitioner’s appointment and others’ to be void ab initio.
- Based on enquiry findings, directions were issued to stop salary payments and lodge F.I.R.s against the petitioner and others.
- Since the appointments were void ab initio, there was no necessity to observe principles of natural justice or issue any prior notice.
- Stopping salary and initiating legal action sufficed; formal termination of service was not necessary.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ramapati Mishra v. State of Bihar, P.L.J.R 2001 (3) page-462 | Salary of a government employee should not be stopped without any enquiry. | The court relied on this precedent to emphasize that stopping salary without enquiry is impermissible. |
| Radha Kumari (In 11516) v. Indu Devi (In 11758), 2002 (3) PLJR Page 794 | In certain exigencies, payment of salary may be withheld till conclusion of enquiry. | The court noted that in the instant case enquiry was complete, but salary was stopped without terminating service, which was impermissible. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the factual matrix and submissions. It noted that although enquiry had been conducted and directions issued to take legal action and stop salary payments, the petitioner’s services had not been formally terminated. The court held that if an appointment is found to be forged or illegal, the effect should be termination of service. Merely stopping salary and initiating legal action without termination is insufficient. The court found that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. Referring to established precedents, the court reaffirmed that salary should not be withheld without enquiry and that even after enquiry, salary cannot be stopped unless service is terminated. The impugned order stopping salary without termination was therefore without jurisdiction and arbitrary.
Holding and Implications
The writ application is disposed of with directions to the authorities to pay salary to the petitioner forthwith until any appropriate action to terminate his services is taken.
The court’s decision directly restores the petitioner’s salary and mandates observance of natural justice before withholding salary or terminating service. No new precedent was set; the ruling applies the settled legal principles reaffirmed in cited cases. The authorities are restrained from stopping salary without due process and formal termination.
Heard counsel for the parties and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
2. By this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the communiques as contained in Annexure 1 dated 24th December, 2002 issued under the signature of Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna to the District Education Officer, Gaya whereby and whereunder directions have been issued to lodge First Information Report against the Headmaster and the teachers who managed to obtain their appointment on the basis of forged documents and to initiate departmental proceeding against the Headmaster of the school and not to pay the salary to the individual teachers including the petitioner.
3. According to the case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna as per recommendation of the Vidyalaya Sewa Board in the year 1988 along with other teachers and thereafter he continued in services and till date he is working as Assistant Teacher. However, his salary has been stopped with effect from December, 2002 pursuant to the impugned direction as contained in Annexure 1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was validly appointed by the competent authority as per the recommendation of Vidyalaya Sewa Board and he is continuing in the services till date and, therefore, the authorities have no jurisdiction to stop his salary till any departmental action is taken against him. It is further submitted that it would appear from the impugned Annexures that a direction was issued to hold an enquiry to identify such teachers who were illegally appointed and to take legal action against them but till date no action has been taken against the petitioner nor any F.I.R has been lodged and, therefore, his payment of salary could not have been stopped. It is also submitted that till date no notice whatsoever has been given to the petitioner to explain his conduct and in a most arbitrary and unreasonable manner the authorities have issued the impugned direction as contained in Annexure 1.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 the District Education Officer, Gaya stating therein inter alia that as per the direction of the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, he has stopped the salary of the petitioner and other persons whose names have been referred in Annexure 1 and directions have been issued to lodge F.I.R against such persons. Learned Government Pleader no. 8, with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit, submitted that vide communication as contained in Annexure A, direction was issued to inquire into the matter and to identify such teachers who obtained their appointments on the basis of forged documents and enquiry as such has been completed and necessary direction has been issued vide impugned communication to take legal action against such teachers and the Headmasters of the school and since the appointment of the petitioner and others have been found to be ab initio void, directions have been issued to stop payment of salary to them. Learned G.P 8, at the same time, submits that appointment of the petitioner and others have been found to be ab initio void, there was no necessity to observe the principles of natural justice and, therefore, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner.
6. From the facts as enumerated above, it is not understandable to me as to when the authorities came to a conclusion on completion of enquiry that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons were not validly appointed, immediate action could have been taken to terminate their services and to take legal action if any. Learned G.P 8, in this context, submits that since there is direction not to pay salary to the petitioner and to iodge F.I.R, there is no necessity to terminate his services. In case the appointment of a government employee is found to be forged or illegal, entailing effect would be to terminate his services. This is altogether a different question that directions have been given to take legal action against them and to proceed against them by lodging F.I.R but till the services of such persons are not terminated, they would be deemed to be continuing in services. So far the facts of this case are concerned prima facie, it appears that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated.
7. On several occasions, this court has dealt with the such matters where payment of salary was stopped. In the case of Ramapati Mishra v. State of Bihar reported in P.L.J.R 2001 (3) page-462, this court held that salary of a government employee should not be stopped without any enquiry. The ratio laid down in the case of Ram Pati Mishra (supra) however, has been affirmed by this court in the case of Radha Kumari (In 11516) v. Indu Devi (In 11758)… reported in 2002 (3) PLJR Page 794 and it was held that in certain exigencies payment of salary cannot be withheld till conclusion of enquiry. In the instant case, it appears that enquiry is complete and directions have been issued to take legal action against defaulting persons and at the same time direction has also been issued to stop their salary. The services of the petitioner, however, has not been terminated till date. Since the enquiry is complete and services of the petitioner have not been terminated, in my opinion, the petitioner would be entitled to get his salary till any appropriate decision is taken in the matter to terminate his services.
8. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 1 and the consequential orders must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice to the extent that salary of the petitioner has been stopped.
9. In that view of the matter, the authorities are directed to pay salary to the petitioner forthwtih till any action to terminate his services is taken against him.
10. With this direction/observation, this writ application stands disposed of.
Alert