IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20152 of 2021 ======================================================

Abhimanyu Prasad Singh Son of Late Karo Singh, Resident of Village -

Dhurgaon ward no. 4, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District - Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar Bihar.

2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna.

5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bajarangi Lal For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subhash Chandra Mishra (Sc16)

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-01-2026 In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

“(i) for setting aside the office order contained in Memo no.840 dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna where under and whereby the petitioner who was working as Assistant Teacher in Gov-ernment Basic School, Parthu, Makhdumpur, District-

Na-landa has been terminated from service.

(ii) Further for a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of termination and his ser-vices may be treated in continuation with all consequential benefits of service including payment of salary and post-re-tirement benefits along with other monetary benefits to-

gether with statutory and penal interest.

(iii) For any other relief/ reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 109 of 2018 and its analogous cases, which was heard on 12.07.2019, arising out of the order of termination from the post of Assistant Teacher for which several writ petitions including a writ petition being CWJC No. 19509 of 2015, which was filed by the petitioner before this Court, said to have been decided analogous on 13.04.2017, wherein the judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge was interfered by noting that the Single Judge had found that there was a procedural violation and instead remitting back the matter to the authorities to examine on fact, had passed an order finding inability to uphold the order of termination. Consequently, the services of all the petitioners were restored, and while restoring the services of all the petitioners, the Hon’ble Single Judge had recorded a finding to the effect that since there are no supportive evidence to support the charges, therefore, the conclusion is based on no evidence. The Hon’ble Division Bench, considering such findings to be bad in law, remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the authorities. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 109 of 2018, is extracted herein below:-

“23. The argument of the respondent-

petitioners is that if the entire merit list is re- looked into as directed in the judgment dated 25.07.2012 it is quite possible that even with the correct marks the respondent-petitioners would succeed in getting selected. This exercise according to them has not been undertaken and which we find is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court or the rules of inquiry. The procedure appears to have been violated, inasmuch as, the respondent- petitioners were admittedly not given a complete copy of the Inquiry Report and the second show-cause notice only mentioned a gist of the charges that were found to be proved. In a couple of cases notices were not properly served. The appellants should have been provided the complete copy of the Inquiry Report relating to each of the candidates in order to enable them to set up their defence. The final authority that