Petitioner does not have locus to challenge order of State Appellate Authority: Justice Nani Tagia

Private petitioner does not have an indefeasible right to participate in departmental proceedings 

In Bachcha Prasad Sharma vs. The The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Nani Tagia of the Patna High Court concluded: "I am of the view that the petitioner who was a complainant and impleaded as respondent No. 9 in the O.A. will not have an indefeasible right to participate in the departmental proceeding initiated or that may be initiated against the respondent No. 10 herein." In this case the respondent no 10,  Md. Ali Akbar, a resident of Dariya Chapra, Bishunpur Patti, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur was dismissed from service. 

The other eight respondents were: Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Director, Primary Education Education Department, Government of Bihar, District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, District Programme Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur, Block Education Officer, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur, Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Paharpur Manorath, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Paharpur Manorath, Sahebganj, Muzaffarpur and the State Appellate Authority, Education Department, Bihar, Patna through the Chairman. Bachcha Prasad Sharma, was the respondent No. 9 in the O.A. before the State Appellate Authority, Education Department, Bihar.

In his 3-page long judgement dated June 18 2025, Justice Tagia observed:"This Court by an order dated 21.12.2022 had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to place judgments to support his contention that he has locus to challenge the order of the State Appellate Authority, whereby, the order of dismissal of the respondent no. 10 in departmental enquiry, was set aside, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any judgment to support his contention that he has a locus to challenge the order of the State Appellate Authority.Since, the proceeding before the State Appellate Authority in O.A. No. 354 of 2022 was with regard to legality of letter No. 22 dated 13.11.2021, issued by the Panchayat Secretary, whereby, the respondent No. 10/ appellant in the O.A. was dismissed from service...." The State Appellate Authority was respondent no. 9.

Dr. Gopal Krishna, the counsel for the respondent No. 10 pointed out to the Court that Justice Tagia's order dated April 3, 2025 had recorded:"On the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 17.04.2025." His subsequent order dated April 17, 2025 had recorded:"None appears on behalf of the petitioner, however, learned counsel for the respondents are present" and had listed the case for June 18, 2025.   

In his order dated June 18, 2025, Justice Tagia recorded:"This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.10.2022 passed by the State Appellate Authority in O.A.Patna High Court CWJC No.17370 of 2022 No. 354 of 2022, whereby, the State Appellate Authority, while setting aside the letter No. 22 dated 13.11.2021, issued by the Panchayat Secretary dismissing the respondent No. 10/ appellant in O.A. No. 354 of 2022 from service, had given liberty to the departmental authority to decide the matter afresh. The petitioner, who was the respondent No. 9 in the O.A. No. 354 of 2022 before the State Appellate Authority, is stated to be a complainant against the present respondent No. 10/appellant in the O.A. No. 354 of 2022, against whom there was an allegation of defalcation of Government money."

Dr. Gopal Krishna drew the attention of the Court towards the first order of the Court dated December 21, 2022, wherein Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the High Court had directed the counsel for the petitioner to "place judgments to support his contention that he has a locus to challenge an order of the State Appellate Authority whereby the dismissal of the Respondent in Department enquiry was set aside." The Court's order dated January 25, 2023 reads: "As a last indulgence, one more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to show his locus of filing of this petition." Dr. Krishna submitted that the counsel for the petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's order and has failed to establish his locus. Justice Tagia concluded:"...this writ petition stands disposed of leaving it open for the State authorities to proceed against the respondent No. 10 as may be deemed appropriate in accordance with law. The writ petition as well as all connected Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off." Dr. S.S.P. Yadav, the counsel for the respondent had submitted that the Court should dismiss the petition instead of disposing it off because the petitioner had failed to establish his locus.