Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles, including providing notice and opportunity to defend, to ensure validity; failure to do so renders the proceedings void.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. The Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of punishment, dated 01.10.2016, contained in Memo No. 697 passed by the District Programme Officer, Arwal. It has further been prayed for a direction to the respondent/authorities for payment of salary and subsistence allowance for the entire period of suspension along with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. By way of I.A No. 1 of 2024, the petitioner sought amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition, stating that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent no. 4, namely the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya, Bihar, who is the appellate authority, has passed an order dated 16.01.2018, contained in Memo No. 67, whereby the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been upheld. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the aforesaid appellate order.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Matric Trained Scale on 01.11.1977, at Primary School, Kendua, Imamganj, District Gaya. In the year 1987, he was granted the first time-bound promotion and subsequently received ‘Pravar Koti’ promotion in the year 1989. Thereafter, he was posted as the In-charge Headmaster of the Middle School, Kochahasa, Karpi Block, District -Arwal, and was due to retire on 30.06.2017.

4. While the petitioner was serving as In-charge Headmaster, the District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, issued a letter bearing Memo No. 494, dated 17.02.2010, placing the petitioner under suspension on the basis of a report submitted by the Area Education Officer cum Incharge, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Arwal on the allegation that he was absent without notice and irregularities were committed in the mid-day meal scheme. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of suspension, petitioner submitted his joining at headquarters on 19.02.2010.

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Jehanabad, by order dated 06.05.2010, framed memo of charge in Prapatra “Ka” and appointed Block Education Officer, Arwal, as Enquiry Officer and Block Education Officer, Karpi, as Presenting Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry.

6. Vide order, dated 10.03.2011, in Memo No. 87, District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, revoked the suspension of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be posted at Middle School, Kochahasa, Karpi, District-Arwal. In the said order, it was clarified that the Departmental Proceeding would continue. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his joining at Middle School, Kochahasa on 15.03.2011.

7. Thereafter, a memo of charge was again served upon the petitioner vide order dated 04.06.2011 in Prapatra “Ka” by District Superintendent of Education, Arwal, and Block Education Officer, Kurtha, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Block Education Officer, Karpi was appointed as Presenting officer. At this stage, the Enquiry officer, submitted the inquiry report on 04.04.2016.

8. In view of the inquiry report dated 04.04.2016, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Arwal, passed the order of punishment dated 01.10.2016 imposing punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect alongwith warning regarding not to remain absent in the school in future without prior intimation and departmental permission. In the punishment order, it was also directed that apart from subsistence allowance during suspension period, nothin