VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) MS . Poonam Singh, the District Superintendent of Education, Jamshedpur, appears in person along with the records of the departmental proceeding in this case. It appears that on the last date, Rs. 100.00 was imposed upon the respondent as costs in CWJC No. 3730/ 2000(R), considering certain statements, which led to the adjournment of the case on that date. Today, the respondents say that the said cost be exempted. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents is warned not to make any such statement in future, if he is not very sure of that. As there was no privity of communication between the Officer and this Court on that date, the Officer concerned is not liable to pay the cost. She is exempted and set at liberty to go.
(2.) THESE writ petitions, have been filed for quashing that part of the order dated 21.9.2000, whereby and whereunder one annual increment of the petitioners has been stopped with cumulative effect and for payment of salary for about seven months prior to suspension. Both the petitioners were the Teachers in Muchiasai Middle School, Bahragora. On certain charges, they were departmentally proceeded and before submission of the charge -sheet, they had already been put under suspension. The Enquiry Officer was directed to conclude the enquiry within the prescribed period and the petitioners were directed to submit explanation within a week of the receipt of the charge -sheet.
(3.) AS the pleas taken in the writ petitions were that the enquiry was not conducted fairly, the proceeding book of the enquiry was called, in the context of which, the District Superintendent of Education appeared today. It is relevant to state here that earlier CWJC No. 2187/2000(R) had been filed, in which the State had appeared through S.C.I, By order dated 25.7.2000, the Court had declined to interfere with the order of suspension on the ground that the departmental enquiry was in progress and the Court had directed to conclude the enquiry within a period of six months from the date of that order. Though, JC to SC -I appeared on that date, but the SC -I did not state that the enquiry had already been concluded. No counter -affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State. The Enquiry Report has been made Annexure in these two writs, vide Annexure B to the counter -affidavit of both the cases. This Annexure shows that the enquiry had already been concluded on 22.7.2000, meaning thereby, before the order was passed in the aforesaid writ petition. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that had this enquiry been concluded on that date, then this could have been brought to the notice of the Court, while earlier writ petition was being disposed of. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that non -disclosure of this fact of conclusion of the enquiry on that particular date showed that the enquiry was not at all concluded till that date and therefore, this enquiry report, Annexure -B, is a suspected document.;