The court refused to remit the matter for a de novo enquiry due to the prolonged duration of the disciplinary proceedings and the impending retirement of the appellant. The punishment imposed was found to be without legal authority.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.03.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1664 of 2014 by which the order of punishment dated 06.09.2013 passed in Service Appeal No.38/2012 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 12.10.2010 as contained in Memo No.3419 has been affirmed, has been refused to be interfered with.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

3. The petitioner was appointed in 1994 as an Assistant Teacher by the State Government as he qualified in a competitive examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission for appointment of Assistant Teacher. He was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in upgraded Middle School, Khudgadda in Bokaro District and subsequently he was given charge of Headmaster in the same school.

4. The writ petitioner was performing his duties honestly and diligently but some interested people of the Khudgadda village in coalition with some officers started harassing the petitioner and in the pressure of a local leader an inspection was made to the petitioner's school by the Block Development Officer, Gomiya. After inspection, the Block Development Officer, Gomiya wrote to the District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro wherein he has stated that an enquiry of the said school was made by him on 07.06.2010 and he found irregularity in building construction work. He also alleged that irregularities were being done by the petitioner in Mid-Day-Meal. The stock register was not up to date. The presence of the students was found 70 out of 145 on the day of inspection, whereas, cent per cent attendance was shown in the attendance register one day prior to the date of inspection. It was also alleged that the cereals of Mid-Day-Meal was kept in the house of the petitioner. Moreover, the equipment of sports and musical instruments were kept in the petitioner's house instead of providing them to the students. It was further alleged that the petitioner was working for 15 to 16 years at one place and the local villagers were annoyed because of his work style. This respondent No.5 recommended transfer of the petitioner immediately to other school.

5. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in the garb of the letter of the BDO, Gomiya, the DSE, Bokaro, passed an order of suspension of the writ petitioner vide memo no. 2416 dated 22.06.2010 reiterating therein the allegations leveled against the petitioner by the BDO, Gomiya without making any enquiry or without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. After issuance of the suspension order, Form 'KA' was issued by the respondent against the petitioner for as many as 3 charges. All the charges were made on the basis of the letter written by the BDO, Gomiya to DSE, Bokaro.

7. The charge sheet was issued by the respondent DSE, Bokaro vide memo no. 2534 dated 01.07.2010.

8. The petitioner replied the charges leveled against him through letter dated 12.08. 2010 and he denied all of them stating therein categorically that they were false and fabricated.

9. An enquiry was conducted by the authorized enquiry officer and he submitted a three pages report to the DSE, Bokaro, dated 16.08.2010 wherein the charges leveled against the petitioner were not found to be true and recommendation for petitioner's transfer to another school was made by the enquiry officer as he had been in the same school for last 15 to 16 years.

10. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that though, the recommendation was made by the BDO, Gomiya, for transfer of the petitioner from the school but, the DSE, Bokaro arbitrarily suspended the petitioner and initiated departmental proceeding against him and passed an order of punishment against the petitioner vide Memo No. 3419 dated 12.10.2010.

11. Bei