Patna High Court
Abhimanyu Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court directed the Director, Primary Education to decide the petitioner’s pending appeal within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhimanyu Prasad Singh, an Assistant Teacher, challenged his termination issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, via Memo No. 840 dated 12‑07‑2021. He sought setting aside the termination order, reinstatement with full service benefits, and related reliefs. Relying on the Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 109 of 2018 and analogous cases where procedural violations in the termination process were highlighted, he argued that he was denied a complete copy of the inquiry report and a proper show‑cause notice. The Court observed that similar appeals had been remanded for fresh consideration and that the petitioner’s appeal was pending before the authorities. Consequently, the Court directed the Director, Primary Education to decide the pending appeal within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination order dated 12‑07‑2021 was procedurally valid under the applicable service rules.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and back‑pay due to alleged procedural violations.
- Whether the High Court can direct the education authority to decide a pending appeal within a specified time.
Subjects
- termination of service
- procedural violation
- reinstatement
- writ petition
- education department
- administrative law
Judgment
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20152 of 2021 dt.06-01-2026
2/6
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.20152 of 2021 dt.06-01-2026
3/6
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 has proceeded to
terminate the services of the respondent-
petitioners ought to have been more specific
about the involvement of the respondent-
petitioners when the charge was one of alleged
manipulation. The reason also, to establish the
nexus of the respondent-petitioners with the
Officers of the Department, has to be recorded
on the basis of evidence by passing a speaking
order. This was necessary in order to find out
the involvement of the respondent-petitioners.
Consequently, the procedure having been
violated, the findings arrived at with regard to
the correctness or otherwise of the merit
position of the respondent-petitioners cannot
be said to be wrong in its entirety unless it can
be shown that all the respondent-petitioners
would fall outside the limit of 150 posts against
which employment had been sought.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20152 of 2021 dt.06-01-2026
4/6
24. Accordingly to our mind, once
the learned Single Judge was of the opinion
that there was a procedural violation, then in
that event, the matter ought to have been
remitted back to the same authority to examine
the facts as alleged by the respondent-
petitioners after providing the documents that
were relevant namely the Inquiry Report and
the letters of appointment etc. before
proceeding to terminate the services of the
respondent-petitioners.
25. In the light of above, we agree
with the findings of the learned Single Judge
that there were procedural violations, but in
view of the fact that the respondent-petitioners
were beneficiaries of a selection on account of
incorrect depiction of marks, the authorities
ought to have put the respondent-petitioners to
notice about such facts including the Inquiry
Report before having proceeded to terminate
their services. The appeals are, therefore,
disposed of by modifying the order of the
learned Single Judge to the effect that the
appellants shall now afford a fresh opportunity
to the respondent-petitioners to give a reply to
all the allegations after supplying them a copy
of the Inquiry Report by giving a fresh show
cause notice and any other available relevant
document and then pass appropriate orders
after considering the reply of the respondent-
petitioners in accordance with law within a
reasonable time.”
3. From the above, it is evident that the matters were
remitted back to the authorities for fresh consideration by
providing fresh opportunity to the respondents-petitioners to file
reply to the allegations, which are levelled against them and
consider their matter afresh. It has next been submitted that
appeals preferred before the authorities, in the light of the order
Patna High Court CWJC No.20152 of 2021 dt.06-01-2026
5/6
passed in the LPA No. 109 of 2018 is still pending for
consideration, while in the case of other similarly situated persons
their appeals have been decided, and to buttress his submission,
the orders passed have also been appended with the supplementary
affidavit as Annexure-P/19, 20 & 21.
4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since
the case of this petitioner is also similar to those, whose appeals
have already been adjudicated and this petitioner is said to have
also filed similar appeal before the concerned authorities,
therefore, he prays that the appeal, which has been filed by the
petitioner, may also be directed to be considered in similar terms.
5. Counsel for the State has no objection, if such
directions are issued to the authorities concerned, where the appeal
is pending, to adjudicate the same by fixing timeline.
6. Considering the fact that similar appeals, which were
filed pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench,
have already been adjudicated, the case of this petitioner is also
similar to those appellants in which orders have been already
recorded, which is appended with the supplementary affidavit filed
in this case as Annexure-P/19 to 21. This Court finds it appropriate
to direct, Director, Primary Education to adjudicate the appeal of
the petitioner strictly in consonance with the directions, issued by
Patna High Court CWJC No.20152 of 2021 dt.06-01-2026
6/6
the Hon’ble Division Bench and also in similar terms, in the event,
the case of this petitioner is also found to fall within the same
parameters.
7. Accordingly, the Director, Primary Education is
directed to decide the appeal, which has already been filed by this
petitioner on 02.08.2021 within a period of eight weeks’ from
today.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…