In the case of Raja Jha Vs State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22497 of 2018] Patna High Court held that court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review, cannot examine, the sufficiency of the reasons for satisfaction of the competent authority especially when it is supported by material on the record.
The petitioner filed an application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of certiorari quashing order contained in Memo No.3751 passed by Secretary of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board whereby the petitioner was put under suspension and the departmental proceeding was initiated, framing the charges in Proforma- ‘Ka’.
In a writ petition a Bench of this Court had directed C.B.I. investigation in the matter of appointment of 73 Gramin Dak Sevak during the period 2008-13 in Muzaffarpur Postal Division on the basis of fake and forged Madhyama marksheet. Eight R.C. cases were registered. During investigation of the aforesaid R.C.case, it revealed that officials of one of the schools namely Krishnadev Niranjan Dr. Jai Narayan Sharma Sanskrit High School, Patahi,
Muzaffarpur in a conspiracy, accepted forms of Madhyama examination for the period 2005-09 from the students and their fee was also collected in unauthorized manner. The S.P., C.B.I. vide his letter addressed to the Chairman of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board reported that during investigation, sufficient material came on the record to initiate departmental proceeding for major punishment against three persons including the petitioner who were Assistants in Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board as they had allowed backdoor entry of students.
The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 was not applicable in the case of employees of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board nor there is any other Rule governing the service condition regulating the area. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order had further been challenged on the ground that the action has been taken on the recommendation of the C.B.I. Hence, the impugned order suffered from non-application of its own mind by the competent authority. The petitioner admitted that the Board used to adopt State Government’s Rule relating to payment of gratuity, leave encashment and benefit of A.C.P. schemes, for its own employees.
Court held that, “The impugned order reveals that Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and Amendment Rules 2007 were applicable and under those Rules action has been taken. The petitioner has admitted that some beneficial provisions of the State Govt. for its employees have been given to the employees of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board also. Hence, they cannot claim immunity from the Disciplinary Proceeding Rule. Therefore, there is no substance in the submission that no Disciplinary Rule was applicable in the matter of employees of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. The Court held that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Mandamus.”
