Patna High Court
Somya SumanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The termination order is quashed as it violated natural justice; the petitioner is to be reinstated.
Summary
Somya Suman, a teacher appointed in 2014 on the basis of a TET certificate, was terminated in August 2023 by the Block Development Officer on the allegation that her certificate was forged. The termination order was issued without any notice or opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the termination. The High Court, relying on earlier decisions (LPA No. 501 of 2017, Chief Post Master General v. Nirbhay Kumar, and Vibha Kumari v. State of Bihar), held that a hearing is mandatory before imposing such punitive action. Consequently, the court quashed the termination order, directed the petitioner’s reinstatement, and ordered that no salary be paid during the interim pending the outcome of the inquiry.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of a government employee for alleged forged documents without notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the termination order should be allowed.
Subjects
- natural justice
- termination of service
- forged certificate
- due process
- writ petition
- reinstatement
- education department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6884 of 2026
======================================================
Somya Suman Wife of Chandan Singh Resident of Village- Masoin Kala,
P.O.- Amawan, P.S.- Kaimur (Bhabua), District- Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Sheikhpura.
4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Sheikhpura.
5. The Block Development Officer, Chewara, P.O. and P.S.- Chewara, District-
Sheikhpura.
6. The Block Education Officer, Chewara, P.O. and P.S.- Chewara, District-
Sheikhpura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-03
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar
issues had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble
Division of this Court and the issues have already been put at
rest vide order dated 14.11.2017 passed in LPA No. 501 of 2017.
The relevant portion is being extracted which reads as follows:-
“Petitioner was appointed as a teacher
in the year 2014 based on the certificate issued to
him for having passed the T.E.T. However, after
working for about three years, by the impugned
order dated 1.12.2016, after about two years, his
Patna High Court CWJC No.6884 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
2/5
services have been terminated by indicating that he
has submitted a forged eligibility test certificate for
seeking appointment. However, it is an admitted
position that after working for about two years, on
account of producing a forged T.E.T. Certificate,
his services were terminated without issuing notice
to him, without granting him any opportunity of
defence or without following the principles of
natural justice. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Chief Post Master General vs.
Nirbhay Kumar, 2008 (3) P.L.J.R. 344 has laid
down the principle that when penal action is taken
and services of an employee is terminated, which
has an adverse consequence on the delinquent
employee, at least an opportunity of hearing should
be granted to him. Even though these grounds were
canvassed before the learned Writ Court, the
learned Writ Court seems to have dismissed the
writ petition because even the T.E.T. certificate,
which was alleged to be forged, was not filed.
In our considered view, when it is an
admitted position that when the services of the
petitioner were terminated for having procured it
by producing a forged certificate, an opportunity of
hearing was required to be granted to the petitioner
and the same having not been done, this itself is
sufficient enough to allow the writ petition.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, we allow
the petition, quash the order dated 8.2.2017 and
grant liberty to the respondents to proceed in
accordance with law. The respondents should
reinstate the petitioner and thereafter proceed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6884 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
3/5
the matter in accordance with law. For the
intervening period, no salary will be paid to the
petitioners. So far as the appellant is concerned, it
would be dependent upon the final out come of the
enquiry conducted by the respondents and the
action that they propose to take after such
enquiry.”
3. It is next submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has
also dealt with the same issue by passing appropriate order in
the case of Vibha Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC
No. 20170 of 2025) and the relevant portion is being extracted
which reads as follows:-
“2. This writ application has been filed for
setting aside the order of removal as contained in
Letter No. 22 dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure-P/3)
issued by the Member Secretary, Panchayat Teacher
Employment Committee-cum-Panchayat Secretary,
Gram Panchayat Raj, Karup, Block-Sasaram,
District-Rohtas by which the services of the
petitioner have been removed without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated
14.10.2022 (Annexure-P/3), it shall transpire that
the petitioner's services have been
terminated/dismissed alleging that he had obtained
employment on the basis of forged documents.
Whatever be the nature of allegation, the petitioner
contends that he should at least have been heard
prior to being removed from service which was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.6884 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
4/5
done in the present case. He further assails the
impugned order by submitting that not only her
employment has been canceled but also order for
recovery of the payments taken by him during the
service period has been directed to be recovered.
4. It is by now well settled that if allegations
are made against any person and based on those
allegations, if the service is to be terminated
dismissed then opportunity of hearing must be
provided to that person. In the present matter, it is an
admitted position that prior to issuance of the
termination order, no notice was issued to the
petitioner and without granting him any opportunity
of defence or without following the principles of
natural justice, the services of the petitioner has
been terminated and direction for recovery has been
made.
5. In the considered view of this Court, an
opportunity of hearing was required to be given to
the petitioner prior to passing the termination order,
which has admittedly not been done in the present
case and, therefore, this itself is sufficient enough to
quash and set aside the termination order and allow
the writ petition.”
4. From the order impugned itself, it appears that
merely on the basis of unilateral findings, the document,
appended by the petitioner, has been found to be forged without
giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as is apparent.
5. Accordingly, taking cue from the adjudication
made by this Court in the aforementioned cases and adopting a
Patna High Court CWJC No.6884 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
5/5
similar view, the violation of the principles of natural justice
before passing the impugned termination order, as is evident
from the impugned Letter No.788 dated 29.08.2023, which is
under challenge, the writ application is allowed and the
impugned order of termination dated 29.08.2023 passed by the
Block Development Officer, Chewara is set aside and the
respondents should reinstate the petitioner and thereafter
proceed in the matter in accordance with law. For the
intervening period, no salary will be paid to the petitioner. So
far as the petitioner is concerned, it would be dependent upon
the final outcome of the inquiry conducted by the respondents
and the action that they propose to take after such inquiry.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.