PATNA: Two senior officers on the Bihar governor’s secretariat who “deliberately concealed crucial facts” and led the Chancellor into passing an faulty order are unfit for his or her positions and must be despatched for acceptable coaching, the Patna excessive courtroom mentioned on Wednesday
Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan’s observations got here on a petition by Kumari Anjana, who was sacked as Aryabhatt Data College (AKU) deputy registrar in January 2024 (Patna excessive courtroom web site)
Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan’s observations got here on a petition by Kumari Anjana, who was sacked as Aryabhatt Data College (AKU) deputy registrar in January 2024 on the bottom that she didn’t possess the required expertise on the time of her appointment practically a decade earlier.
Justice Sharan directed the Chancellor to reinstate the official Anjana with all consequential advantages and flagged “grave issues” concerning the method during which the officers on the Chancellor Secretariat carried out their obligations.
“I direct that this order be placed before the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action concerning OSD-J Balendra Shukla, who holds the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. Furthermore, with respect to Mahavir Prasad Sharma, OSD (University),the Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Governor to place the matter before the Chancellor for necessary action,” the bench mentioned.
“The office of the Chancellor is a statutory position, and the Governor, by virtue of holding the post of Governor, assumes the role of Chancellor of Universities of Bihar as per the provisions of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and, to assist him in discharging his official, legislative, executive, statutory, and quasi-judicial functions, officers from the administrative and judicial services are deputed to the Governor’s Secretariat for a specific term,” the order mentioned.
These officers, as soon as posted within the governor’s secretariat, had been duty-bound to current correct info, related statutory provisions, and present judicial precedents on varied points to make sure that the Chancellor may make well-informed choices and subject orders in compliance with statutory provisions and established judicial pronouncements. The bench mentioned that within the current case, there have been allegations of “ante-dating” within the order by the Chancellor which had been discovered to be true.
In view of the allegations, the courtroom summoned the 2 officers together with the unique file of the petitioner’s attraction in a sealed cowl.
“Upon perusal of the records and upon inquiry from the aforesaid officials, I found that the allegations of ante-dating had merit and the officials failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions posed by the Court and instead tendered their oral apologies,” the bench mentioned within the order.
“In my considered opinion, the two positions are of high responsibility and integrity, as it is their bounden duty to assist the Chancellor in passing just, fair, and legal orders or directions. However, in the present case, I find that these responsibilities have not only been overlooked by the concerned officials but that they have also deliberately concealed crucial facts, thereby misleading the Chancellor into passing an erroneous order,” he added.
The bench held “that the concerned officials (were) unfit for their respective positions and should be sent for appropriate training”.
A senior AKU official mentioned that it was unlucky {that a} comparatively new college needed to grapple with points associated to appointments and absorption of non-teaching workers into instructing cadre although barely 10% appointments have taken place on duly sanctioned vacancies.