JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.09.2019, issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, whereby and whereunder the entire pension and gratuity amount of the petitioner has been forfeited.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher at Sahebganj on 09.05.1989, whereafter she was transferred to Muzaffarpur in the year 1990 and finally she retired on 30.11.2014. It appears that in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 08.12.1998, passed in C.W.J.C. no. 9047 of 1998, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as "the C.B.I") conducted an inquiry pertaining to appointment of candidates belonging to the lower Subordinate Education Services (female cadre) and Assistant Teachers appointed during the period 1980-98. The C.B.I, during the course of inquiry, found 27 Assistant Teachers to have been legally and validly appointed whereas the appointments of 278 Assistant Teachers were found to be irregular. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Patna High Court had issued certain directions in a Public Interest Litigation bearing C.W.J.C. no. 10002 of 2016, leading to the respondents taking effective action against the candidates whose appointments were found irregular, whereafter the said writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 21.10.2016.

3. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent State that the C.B.I, had submitted its inquiry report wherein, as far as the petitioner is concerned, it was found that she was over-aged by 5.5 years at the time of her appointment and her appointment was also stated to have been made in an irregular manner i.e. without following the prescribed procedures. It was also found that no select committee proceedings were available as well as no roster clearance was obtained for the advertised post and the reservation rules were also not followed. In such view of the matter, since the appointment of the petitioner was made without following the norms/ procedures for appointment, a proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was initiated against the petitioner vide Memo dated 26.08.2016, after issuance of a show cause notice dated 22.08.2016. A charge-sheet was then issued to the petitioner vide Memo dated 12.03.2018. The Presenting Officer, who had been appointed in the aforesaid departmental inquiry, had sent a letter dated 07.06.2018 to the petitioner to submit her defence, however the petitioner had failed to respond, whereafter a reminder dated 14.06.2018 was issued to the petitioner by the presenting officer, however again the petitioner failed to respond. Yet another reminder dated 30.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner requesting her to submit her defence statement. The Inquiry Officer had then issued a letter dated 06.07.2019 to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing and informing the petitioner to be present for hearing of the said case. The Inquiry Officer had again fixed a date of hearing and informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11.07.2019, Finally, the Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report dated 31.07.2019, finding all the charges to have been proved. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur had then vide letter dated 13.08.2019, issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner, enclosing a copy of inquiry report and seeking her reply. The petitioner had then submitted her reply and after consideration of the same, the impugned order dated 19.09.2019 has been passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the entire pension and gratuity amount of the petitioner has been forfeited.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the charges framed against the petitioner in Prapatra-Ka dated 12.03.2018, which in brief are:-

(i) The appointment of the petitioner has not been made by the competent