Kumari Neelam vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Kumari Neelam, retired on December 31, 2022. The District Education Officer, Madhubani, by an order dated April 16, 2025, rejected her claim for post-retiral benefits, specifically withholding Rs. 60,245/- from her earned leave encashment. The petitioner alleges this action was taken unilaterally without providing her an opportunity to be heard. She had submitted tax invoices for purchased articles, but these were allegedly not considered. The petitioner seeks quashing of the inquiry report and the order rejecting her claim, and further seeks payment of the withheld amount, interest, litigation costs, and compensation for harassment.
Held
The Court held that the action of the District Education Officer in passing the impugned order dated April 16, 2025, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the District Education Officer to call upon the petitioner and the vendors to present the requisite documents, including GST returns and tax invoices. The petitioner is to be given a due opportunity to explain. Based on this verification, the District Education Officer must calculate any amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner. If misappropriation is found, a fresh reasoned order must be passed within six weeks. If only an arithmetical miscalculation is found, it should be adjusted without penal action, based on evidence from tax invoices and amounts received. The Court explicitly left undecided any claim for interest, litigation costs, or compensation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated April 16, 2025, passed by the District Education Officer, Madhubani, rejecting the petitioner's claim for earned leave encashment is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a hearing? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the order was passed unilaterally without affording her any opportunity to present her case or explain the tax invoices submitted. This lack of hearing renders the order arbitrary and contrary to law. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the procedural fairness of the order. However, the court's direction implies a need for proper verification and opportunity to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 3 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the BEPC.
Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:- 2/4 “I. For quashing of the Two Member Enquiry Committee, inquiry report/ Order Letter No. 804 dated 24.02.2025 by the respondent No. 4. ii. For quashing of the Office Order Memo No. 1318 dated 16.04.2025 by the respondent No.3 thereupon. iii. For issuance of a writ/writs, order/orders/direction/directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities for making immediate release payment of post retiral benefits dues Earned Leave (EL) Encashment amounting Rs. 60,245/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Five Only) of the petitioner which has been withheld illegally Earned Leave /Encashment which have not been paid to the petitioner till date. iv. the Earned Leave For direction to the respondents authorities to pay the compound interest/simple interest in of 18% per month/per annum on /Encashment dues, which was illegally withheld by the respondents authorities as well as to pay cost of litigation which has been filed by petitioner. For direction the respondent authorities concerned to make payment of compensation to the petitioner, the petitioner have suffered huge financial loss, harassment and mental agony for negligence and deliberate latches on the part of espondents authorities concerned for not paying abovesaid Earned Leave/Encashment. onvion And any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court omo thinks fit and right should also be awarded to the petitioner”
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner informs this Court that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who retired on 31.12.2022, the District Education Officer, Madhubani vide order contained in Memo No.1318 dated 16.04.2025 has unilaterally rejected the claim of the petitioner, as a sum of Rs.60,245/- was withheld from the petitioner's earned leave encashment by the respondent authorities.
3/4
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has brought all the tax invoices in respect of the articles which were purchased by her. However, neither the said documents were taken into consideration, nor the petitioner was given opportunity to explain by the District Education Officer before passing the impugned order and as such unilateral action taken by the District Education Officer, Madhubani is not in accordance with law and seeks quashing of order dated 16.04.2025. 5. Considering the aforesaid information made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court makes it clear that before taking any penal action taken against any employee, at least, a minimum opportunity of hearing is required to be given. In the present case, the action of the District Education Officer can only be held to be arbitrary against the principle of natural justice. The impugned order contained in Memo No.1318 dated 16.04.2025 (Annexure P/10) is hereby quashed and set aside.
The District Education Officer, Madhubani is directed to call upon the petitioner and the vendors, who have supplied the requisite quantity of goods along with the GST return and tax invoice and upon verification and giving due opportunity to the petitioner, calculate the amount which 4/4 according to him, has been misappropriated by the petitioner. In case, he finds that the petitioner has misappropriated the said amount, a fresh reasoned order is required to be passed in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. In case, if it is found only an arithmetical miscalculation, then without taking any penal action against the petitioner, the same should be adjusted after calculating it on the basis of the evidences on record based on the tax invoices and the amount received in that regard.
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Education Officer to pass a fresh order within a period of 6 weeks without delay, or he will be responsible for withholding the amount of the petitioner.
Sanjay/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.