HC indicts 2 Raj Bhavan officials, says they’re ‘unfit’ to hold their positions

PATNA: Two senior officials at the Bihar governor’s secretariat who “deliberately concealed crucial facts” and led the Chancellor into passing an erroneous order are unfit for their positions and should be sent for appropriate training, the Patna high court said on Wednesday

Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan’s observations came on a petition by Kumari Anjana, who was sacked as Aryabhatt Knowledge University (AKU) deputy registrar in January 2024 on the ground that she did not possess the required experience at the time of her appointment nearly a decade earlier.

Justice Sharan directed the Chancellor to reinstate the official Anjana with all consequential benefits and flagged “grave issues” about the manner in which the officials at the Chancellor Secretariat carried out their responsibilities.

“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 said.

“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 said.

These officers, once posted in the governor’s secretariat, were duty-bound to present accurate facts, relevant statutory provisions, and existing judicial precedents on various issues to ensure that the Chancellor could make well-informed decisions and issue orders in compliance with statutory provisions and established judicial pronouncements. The bench said that in the present case, there were allegations of “ante-dating” in the order by the Chancellor which were found to be true.

In view of the allegations, the court summoned the two officials along with the original record of the petitioner’s appeal in a sealed cover.

“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 said in 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 said that it was unfortunate that a relatively new university had to grapple with issues related to appointments and absorption of non-teaching staff into teaching cadre despite the fact that barely 10% appointments have taken place on duly sanctioned vacancies.