Patna High Court
Mithilesh Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 19 December, 2024
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5099 of 2020
======================================================
Mithilesh Prasad Son of Late Saryug Prasad, Resident of Beu, P.S.- Beur,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
3. Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manik Vedsen, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2024
This Court has heard Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned
Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned
Advocate for the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order as
contained in Memo No. 2839/2019 dated 29.06.2019, issued by
the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter
referred to as, "BSEB"), whereby the petitioner has been
dismissed from service.
3. The factual matrix of the case, as culminated from
the materials available on record are enumerated hereinbelow.
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Routine Clerk by the
Secretary of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
2/21
06.12.1988
. On account of merger of the Council with the Bihar
Secondary School Examination Board, the petitioner became
employee of the BSEB, on condition mentioned at the time of
merger. Having been found eligible, the petitioner was promoted
to the post of Section Officer by the letter dated 10.09.1999.
4. While the petitioner was discharging the duties of
verification of mark-sheet and testimonial, in the meanwhile, on
account of the charge of extorting money, in course of
verification of Intermediate certificate of one Barinder Singh, a
case has been instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation
for his fraudulent acts and cheating. The criminal case was
numbered as R.C. 09 of 2012(S) CBI/Spl and finally resulted
into conviction of the petitioner along with other accused
persons, vide judgment dated 27.11.2014, for the offences under
Section 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of two years under all the Sections, except
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine of
Rs. 500/-. So far the other Sections are concerned, the petitioner
has been imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each head. The
copy of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
3/21
been placed on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
5. The petitioner on being aggrieved, preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 1-S/10 of 2015, wherein, the learned
Appellate Court vide its order dated 12.07.2019 has affirmed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Against the order
aforenoted, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the
learned High Court of Himachal Pradesh through Cr. M. P. No.
1336 of 2019, wherein the learned Court after hearing the
parties has been pleased to suspend the sentence affirmed by the
Appellate Court vide order dated 12.07.2019.
6. In view of the conviction of the petitioner, the
Deputy Secretary (Establishment), BSEB, Patna vide his Letter
No. 2063/2019 dated 02.05.2019 issued show-cause notice, in
terms of the Letter No. 7820 dated 28.10.2003 of the Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department. In response to the
show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his show-cause
explanation on 11.05.2019, stating therein that the order of
sentence has already been suspended till disposal of the case,
apart from some other plea. Despite the aforesaid position, the
Secretary of the Board vide Memo No. 2839/2019 dated
29.06.2019, dismissed the petitioner from service, which order
is put to challenge before this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
4/21
7. The representation preferred by the petitioner
against the impugned order of dismissal also came to be rejected
by the Joint Secretary (Establishment), BSEB on 27.09.2019,
which was served upon him on 15.09.2022; this order is also
challenged by filing an interlocutory application bearing I.A.
No. 02 of 2022.
8. Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned Advocate for the
petitioner while assailing the impugned order of dismissal has
made specific contention that the petitioner was appointed as
Class-III employee; since the appointment of the petitioner was
made by the Chairman of the Board, as per the provision
contained in BSEB Act, 1952, it is the Chairman, who alone had
the power of initiating departmental proceeding and dismiss
Class-III employee. The order of dismissal passed by the
Secretary of the BSEB, who is admittedly much below the
Chairman of the Board, and not the appointing authority of the
cadre of the petitioner; the order of the dismissal is in the teeth
of the provisions contained in Article 311 (1) of the Constitution
of India. The impugned order also gets worst, as in the case in
hand, even the show-cause was issued by the Deputy Secretary
(Establishment) of the Board, who had no such power, is the
contention of the learned Advocate. It is further contended that
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
5/21
even on merit, the petitioner was framed in a false case and his
conviction is based on uncorroborated evidence and erroneous
finding of guilt by trial Court and upheld by Appellate Court,
which order of sentence has already been suspended by the
Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and there is every
chance of success in the appeal and, as such, the order of
dismissal of the petitioner is in the teeth of the order of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh. Moreover, the appeal/revision is
continuance of the proceeding, which has yet not been finalized.
9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further urged
before this Court that the impugned order has been passed in
terms of the letter of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms,
Government of Bihar No. 7820 dated 28.10.2003, which in sum
and substance provides that the Government servant may be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank, without being put
through departmental proceedings on the ground of conduct,
which has led to his conviction on a criminal charges. However,
the aforenoted circular has already been amended by the
Government of Bihar vide Letter No. 3/M-162/05-(Ka) 2324
dated 10th July, 2007, which necessitates the initiation of a
departmental proceeding simultaneously with the criminal
proceeding before passing any order of dismissal/removal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
6/21
10. Apart from the submissions aforenoted, learned
Advocate for the petitioner lastly contended that the respondents
miserably failed to justify delay of five years, inasmuch as, the
conviction order was passed on 27.11.2014, which order was
duly communicated to the BSEB, but the respondents did not
consider expedient to take any action for about 3-4 years and on
this ground also, passing of dismissal order is not sustainable.
To fortify the aforesaid contention, learned Advocate for the
petitioner has placed the copy of the Bihar School Examination
Board Regulations 1964. Referring to Chapter-X, especially
Rule 52 thereof, he further submits that there is specific
prescriptions, which stipulates that the Chairman is the
punishing authority for all ministerial staff and the Secretary is
the punishing authority for all Class-IV employees. A
punishment can be imposed only by the prescribed punishing
authority and any deviation from the settled proposition would
render the impugned order void.
11. To controvert the submissions aforenoted, Mr.
Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocate for the BSEB has
submitted that so far the impugned order of dismissal passed by
the Secretary of the BSEB is concerned, the same was made
with the prior approval of the Chairman of the Board. Attention
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
7/21
of this Court is drawn to Regulation 1 (e) of Chapter-VII of the
Bihar School Examination Board Regulations, 1964, which says
that subject to the approval of the Chairman, the Secretary is
empowered to appoint, dismiss, fine, promote, demote, suspend,
discharge, and take necessary action to maintain the strength,
discipline, efficiency, and morale of the Board’s office with
respect to all staff members, except the Officers of the Board.
He would thus contended that prior to the order of dismissal, the
approval of the Chairman was duly taken on 24.06.2019, as is
evident from the relevant extract of the concerned file of the
Board; the record has been produced pursuant to the direction of
this Court.
12. With reference to the submission causing delay in
passing the punishment order, he has reiterated the factual
chronology of the case, right from the institution of the criminal
case to inflicting the impugned order of punishment. It is the
contention of the learned Advocate for the BSEB that on receipt
of the information from the Central Bureau of Investigation vide
Letter No. 276 dated 30.01.2014, regarding the pendency of a
criminal case before the CBI Court, Shimla against the
petitioner and others, the BSEB immediately issued a show-
cause notice to the petitioner on 11.03.2014. By the order of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
8/21
Chairman; Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were
appointed. After proper enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted
his enquiry report that since criminal case is pending before the
learned trial Court, therefore, it would not be appropriate to
make enquiry into this matter. Subsequently, on 05.08.2016, the
Head of the Branch, CBI, Shimla informed the BSEB regarding
the petitioner’s conviction in the aforenoted case. In the light of
the above information, explanation was sought for from the
petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service, on
account of his conviction by CBI Court. The petitioner
submitted his response, which was duly considered in the light
of proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and
consequently, with the Chairman’s approval, the Secretary of the
BSEB vide office order bearing Memo No. 2839/2019 dated
29.06.2019, dismissed the petitioner from his services.
13. Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate for the BSEB
further contended that in a case, where a government servant
was an employee, is convicted on a criminal charge of
corruption, the employer has right to dismiss the employee, in
terms of the proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of
India. The conduct of an employee, which led to conviction on a
criminal charge is sufficient to take such action. Moreover,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
9/21
before the impugned order, show-cause was duly asked and
reply thereof was filed by him stating therein that on account of
suspension of sentence, he should be allowed to continue in the
service, till the disposal of the revision application, which is
pending before the Hon’ble High Court. However, the request of
the petitioner did not accede to, as the order of dismissal,
removal or reduction to a rank of a government servant, who has
been convicted by a criminal court, is not barred merely because
the sentence or order suspended by the Appellate Court or on
the ground, the said government servant/accused has been
released on bail, pending the appeal.
14. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the
learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shio Bihari
Rai Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. in LPA No. 1111 of 2000,
wherein, the Court held that Article 311 of the Constitution
grants protection to a Government employee from dismissal.
The said Article, however, makes it abundantly clear that such
protection is not applicable, in case, the order of dismissal is
based on conviction. Mr. Prasad, lastly contended that even if
the impugned order takes note of the Circular/Letter of the
Personnel & Administration Reforms Department dated
28.10.2003, which was later on modified or amended by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
10/21
subsequent letter dated 10.07.2007, but the same is only in the
nature of guideline and cannot oust the power of the government
and its instrumentality, as provided under proviso (a) of Article
311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
15. This Court has anxiously heard the learned
Advocate for the respective parties and also meticulously
perused the materials available on record and also went through
the relevant extract of the file placed before this Court.
16. The question for consideration, as has been culled
out from the submissions/pleadings of this case is as to whether
the petitioner can be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal
without there being any departmental enquiry/proceeding and/or
whether the order of punishment inflicted by the Secretary of
the BSEB is legal and valid, in terms of the relevant
prescription, as provided under Chapter-X of the BSEB
Regulation, 1964. One another question has also been posed for
consideration, as to whether during the pendency of the appeal
or revision, which is in continuance of the trial should the
disciplinary authority not await for the final outcome of the
appeal/revision and/or, the impugned order is not vitiated with
the delay in passing the impugned order of punishment.
17. So far the contention of the petitioner with regard
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
11/21
to the power of the Secretary of the BSEB in inflicting the
punishment to Class-III employees is concerned, the same is
obviously not permissible in terms of Rule 52 of the Regulation
1964, as it is the Chairman, who is the competent authority to
inflict the punishment. However, the Regulation 1(e) of
Chapter-VII of the Regulation, 1964 empowers the Secretary,
subject to approval of the Chairman to appoint, dismiss, fine,
promote, demote, suspend, discharge, and take necessary action
to maintain the strength, discipline, efficiency and morale of the
Board’s office with respect to all staff members, except the
Officers of the Board.
18. On going through the notings of the file and the
relevant extract thereof, this Court is of the opinion that before
inflicting the order of dismissal, the approval of the Chairman
was duly asked for and the same was also accorded. Thus, in
view thereof, this point of the learned Advocate for the
petitioner answered in negative.
19. So far the issue with regard to the power of the
disciplinary authority to inflict the punishment of dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank, in view of conviction by a
criminal Court, it would be worth benefiting to quote Article
311 (2)(a), hereunder:-
“6. Article 311(2) declares that no
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
12/21person, who is a member of the civil service of the
Union or All India Service or a civil service of a
State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State
shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank
except after an inquiry in which he has been
informed of the charges against him and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of
those charges. The second proviso, however, carves
out three exceptions to the said rule. We are
concerned with the first exception mentioned under
clause (a). Insofar as it is relevant, the second
proviso reads as follows:
“Provided further that this clause shall not apply–
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank on the ground of conduct
which has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge.”
20. Bare reading of the aforenoted provision, there
would not be any uncertainty that in any event, where the
government servant is sought to be inflicted punishment of
dismissal/removal or reduction in rank, an enquiry after
informing the charges against him and giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of each of the charges is
sine qua non. However, the proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) clearly
envisages that such enquiry after framing of charge and giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard would not be necessary,
where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on
the ground of misconduct, which has led to his conviction on a
criminal charge.
21. The identical issue has come up for consideration
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
13/21
before the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Suryadeo Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and other
analogous cases, (2011) 1 PLJR 28, wherein, the learned Court
having taken note of the proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the
Constitution of India as also the prescriptions of the Bihar
Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
2005, posed a question as to whether a case where government
servant is removed from service on the ground of conviction by
a Court of law in a criminal case, there is no requirement of a
regular departmental enquiry or at least necessary to issue notice
and/or afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person
that there is a tentative decision to inflict him with such
punishment. The learned Court has aptly answered the question
in paragraph nos. 17, 19 and 20, which are reproduced,
hereinbelow:-
“17. It is true that under proviso
to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India,
it has been envisaged that such inquiry after
framing of charges and giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of those
charges would not be necessary where a
person is dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank on a ground of the conduct which has
led to his conviction of a criminal charge.
However, there is nothing in Article 311 of
the Constitution of India which says that even
notice is not required to be given to such a
persons who is sought to be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank on the ground of
his conviction of a criminal charge. In the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
14/21considered opinion of this Court, proviso (a)
to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
only suggests that the requirement of a
regular departmental enquiry which begins
with the framing of charge, continues with
the leading of evidence by way of giving
opportunity of hearing and concluding it by
an appropriate order of punishment is not
required to be gone into in the cases in which
government servants are removed from
service on the ground of conviction by a
court of law in a criminal case. It therefore
appears to this Court that as a matter of fact
even when the procedure of a regular
departmental proceeding would not be
required to be followed in case of dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank on the ground
of conviction in a criminal cases, even in
those cases it would be absolutely necessary
to issue notice and/or afford an opportunity
of hearing to the concerned person that there
is a tentative decision to inflict him with such
punishment of dismissal, removal or
reduction in rank because his conduct on the
basis of the specific criminal charge which
led to his conviction did not render him fit to
continue in the Government service or the
post which he was holding prior to his
conviction.
19. It is not in doubt that removal
from service under rule 14 is a major penalty
under Rule 14(IX). If in this context, the
exhaustive provision under rule 17 laying
down the procedure for imposing major
penalty is taken into consideration, it would
be absolutely clear that only such procedure
for imposition of penalties was not to be
followed in the case of a Government servant
who had been convicted on a criminal
charge. Rule 20 of the Rules infact lays down
that notwithstanding anything contained in
rule 17 to 19 where any penalty is imposed
on a government servant on the ground of
conduct which had led to his conviction on a
criminal charge, the disciplinary authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
15/21may consider the circumstances of the case
and make such order thereon as it deems fit.
20. The second proviso to rule 20
infact answers the question in hand where it
has been said that the government servant
may be given an opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed to be
imposed before any order is made in a case
under rule 20(i) of the Rules. Thus, from the
reading of rule 20(i) of the Rules and its
second proviso, it is absolutely clear that
even in cases where penalty is to be imposed,
either major or minor in terms of rule 14, the
government servant is required to be given
an opportunity of making a representation on
the penalty proposed to be imposed before an
order is made on the ground of conviction on
a criminal charge.”
22. The aforesaid judgment has further been reiterated
by this Court in the case of Subrata Basu Vs. The State of
Bihar and Ors., (2013) 3 PLJR 608, wherein, while reiterating
the aforesaid proposition of law, has also held that a government
servant in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Government Service
Conduct Rules is required to maintain absolute integrity,
devotion to duty and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a
government servant. This aspect of the matter was also
considered by the learned Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Sarju Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 285,
wherein, the learned Court held that a government servant
having been convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction for
criminal charge of murder can be said to have committed for an
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
16/21
offence involving moral turpitude and thus his such conduct
being in violation of Rule-3 of the Bihar Government Service
Conduct Rules.
23. In the case in hand, the petitioner was charged
with manipulation of record and extracting money during
verification of mark-sheets, which was proved in a criminal trial
and duly affirmed by the Appellate Court. From the record it
transpired that show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner
and in response thereto, the petitioner has submitted his reply,
which was duly considered by the competent authority and later
on, after obtaining the approval of the Chairman, as required in
terms of the Regulation, 1964, the impugned order of dismissal
came to be passed.
24. So far the plea taken by the petitioner with regard
to the suspension of the sentence and the pendency of the
revision application against the order of the Appellate Court, it
is well settled that suspension of sentence or release on bail by
the appellate Court does not render the provision of proviso (a)
Article 311 (2) inoperative. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Deputy Director of Collegiate Education
(Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera, reported in
(1995) 3 SCC 377 in no uncertain term held that clause (a) to
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
17/21
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India speaks of conduct,
which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. It does not
speak of sentence or punishment awarded. Merely because the
sentence is suspended and/or the accused is released on bail, the
conviction does not cease to be operative. Section 389 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, although empowers the
Appellate Court to suspend the sentence or the order appealed
against or to release the accused on bail and does not expressly
speak of suspension of conviction; though in certain situations,
the appellate Court may also have the power to suspend the
conviction. This Court deems it apt to encapsulate relevant
paragraphs for appreciation of the issue framed herein;
“9. The Tribunal seems to be of the opinion
that until the appeal against the conviction is
disposed of, action under clause (a) of the
second proviso to Article 311(2) is not
permissible. We see no basis or justification
for the said view. The more appropriate
course in all such cases is to take action
under clause (a) of the second proviso to
Article 311(2) once a government servant is
convicted of a criminal charge and not to
wait for the appeal or revision, as the case
may be. If, however, the government servant-
accused is acquitted on appeal or other
proceeding, the order can always be revised
and if the government servant is reinstated,
he will be entitled to all the benefits to which
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
18/21he would have been entitled to had he
continued in service. The other course
suggested, viz., to wait till the appeal,
revision and other remedies are over, would
not be advisable since it would mean
continuing in service a person who has been
convicted of a serious offence by a criminal
court. It should be remembered that the
action under clause (a) of the second proviso
to Article 311(2) will be taken only where the
conduct which has led to his conviction is
such that it deserves any of the three major
punishments mentioned in Article 311(2). As
held by this Court in Shankar Dass v. Union
of India [(1985) 2 SCC 358 : 1985 SCC
(L&S) 444 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 242] : (SCC p.
362, para 7)“Clause (a) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) of the Constitution confers on the
Government the power to dismiss a person
from service ‘on the ground of conduct which
has led to his conviction on a criminal
charge’. But that power like every other
power has to be exercised fairly, justly and
reasonably. Surely, the Constitution does not
contemplate that a government servant who
is convicted for parking his scooter in a no-
parking area should be dismissed from
service. He may, perhaps, not be entitled to
be heard on the question of penalty since
clause (a) of the second proviso to Article
311(2) makes the provisions of that article
inapplicable when a penalty is to be imposed
on a government servant on the ground of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
19/21conduct which has led to his conviction on a
criminal charge. But the right to impose a
penalty carries with it the duty to act justly.”
25. Similar view was again reiterated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. K.
Guruswamy, (1996) 7 SCC 114. Further the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar,
(1997) 7 SCC 514, while upholding the order of dismissal from
a convicted employee has observed that if the conviction is not
obliterated, any action taken against a government servant on a
misconduct which led to his conviction by the court of law does
not lose its efficacy merely because the appellate court has
suspended the execution of sentence.
26. In the light of the settled legal position and the
aforementioned discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold
that neither the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner
nor the pendency of the revision could have stood in the way of
the charges in dismissing the petitioner from service, once the
petitioner has been served with the show-cause notice and his
reply was duly considered, as discussed hereinabove.
27. So far the last issue based upon the contention of
the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order
passed in terms of the circular/letter dated 28.10.2003,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
20/21
nonetheless it stood modified by the government on 10th July,
2007 itself, prescribing the requirement of the departmental
proceeding, after framing of the charge in case of conviction and
thus, the order suffers from non-application of mind, does not
find force, as the letter/circular has no statutory force and it only
prescribes a guidelines to be followed.
28. Well settled it is that no letter or any circular
would have even the semblance of a valid decision, if in any
circumstances, it causes eclipse to the statutory provision of the
Rules/Act and the solemn prescriptions of the Constitution; once
proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India makes
it explicitly clear that the protection of Article 311 (2) would not
be applicable in case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of a government servant on account of conviction by a criminal
Court. Moreover, the letter of 10.07.2007 does not speak of any
consequences that in case of non-compliance of such decision, it
shall make the impugned order of punishment invalid or
inoperative.
29. This Court is also satisfied with the chronological
facts that there is no delay and latches on the part of the
respondent authorities in inflicting the order of punishment of
dismissal, since the order of conviction dated 27.11.2014 has
Patna High Court CWJC No.5099 of 2020 dt.19-12-2024
21/21
been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 12.07.2019 and during
the interregnum period, the petitioner has been offered show-
cause and appropriate opportunity to be heard before passing the
impugned order of dismissal.
30. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and
the discussion made hereinabove, this Court does not find any
merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same stands
dismissed. The question/issue answered accordingly.
31. The original record submitted for perusal of this
Court is hereby directed to hand over to the learned Advocate
for the Bihar School Examination Board.
32. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 11.11.2024 Uploading Date 25.12.2024 Transmission Date NA