JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Lalan Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned AC to GP-18.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as contained in Memo No. 241 dated 11.09.2018, issued under the signature of the respondent Director, Secondary Education, Patna, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of demotion to the lowest pay scale i.e. basic grade and the petitioner is held entitled only for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension; further the petitioner has also been debarred from holding the post of Incharge Head Master, besides she shall not be deputed on any post relating to examination in future.

3. The challenge has also been made to Memo No.295 dated 27.06.2025, issued under the signature of Secretary, Education Department, whereby the appeal preferred against the order of punishment, in pursuant to the order passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 1313 of 2019 came to be rejected.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is apprised to this Court that the petitioner was extended promotion to the post of Head Master vide Annexure 13 and 14 series, but the same has also been withdrawn vide Letter No. 739 dated 13.11.2025. The aforenoted order has further put to challenge by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.01 of 2025.

5. The relevant facts for adjudicating the issue are in a narrow compass. The petitioner while posted as Incharge Principal, Higher Secondary School, Purani Bazar, Lakhisarai was placed under suspension on account of certain imputation, in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The memo of charge was duly issued vide letter contained in Memo No. 113 dated 05.01.2018.

6. The petitioner was found indulge in the irregularity conducted in the Intermediate Sent Up Test, 2016 and she did not adhere the departmental order, besides involved in corrupt practices and creating disorder in the school and causing hindrances in the study work.

7. The petitioner on receipt of the memo of charge submitted a detailed written statement. The explanation of the petitioner was duly considered by the enquiry officer the charges stood not prove and accordingly, the enquiry report was duly submitted to the disciplinary authority, the copy of which is also marked as Annexure-P/4.

8. In the meantime, the petitioner challenged the order of suspension by preferring CWJC No. 7614 of 2018. A Bench of this Court disposed off the same directing the respondents to take a final decision on the suspension of the petitioner as well as on enquiry report, within a maximum period of one month. However, the respondent authority on being dissatisfied with the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, directed for de novo enquiry at the instance of the learned Lokayukta, as is evident from the letter contained in Memo No. 738 dated 07.03.2018.

9. The petitioner again compelled to approach this Court by filing MJC No. 2011 of 2018 as the order dated 24.02.2018 was not complied within a month and during the pendency of the aforenoted application, she could come to know that disciplinary authority has ordered for fresh enquiry, without any notice or information to the petitioner, on same set of charges and evidences obtained by the complainant. The petitioner entered her appearance before the enquiry officer and asked for the necessary documents in order to give proper reply.

10. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the enquiry proceeded and this time, the enquiry officer surprisingly found the charges proved and submitted second enquiry report, as contained in Letter No. 125 dated 10.07.2018 (Annexure-P/7). The petitioner was asked second show-cause, which was responded by the petitioner with a demand of certain documents for proper reply, but the same has never been made available to her and finally, the impugned order of punishment came to be passed under Letter No. 241 dated 1