Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.8595 OF 2012 =================================================== RABINDRA KUMAR S/O SHRI JALEBI RAY R/O VILLAGE + P.O.- BANKATWA, P.S.- JITNA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (PERSONES), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4.THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHAMPARAN RANGE, BETIAH. 5.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, MUZAFFARPUR, RANGE MUZAFFARPUR. 6.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s:Mr. Nirbhay K.Singh GP-26 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3/ 29-04-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash the order of termination of his service dated 23.03.2012. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that while it is true that the petitioner belongs to the backward category but due to inadvertence on his part
Legal Reasoning
he had in application ticked in affirmative in the box meant for most backward class and Patna High Court CWJC No.8595 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2013 2 therefore when his appointment on the post of Constable was made after completing the entire selection process the same could not have been cancelled in the manner it has been done by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran,
Legal Reasoning
Motihari. In this regard, emphasis of Mr. Singh is that once the petitioner had already been appointed and if there was any misconduct on the part of the petitioner he ought to have been subjected to departmental proceeding before passing of the impugned order of termination which actually would to punishment both in terms of the Bihar Government Servant(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules-2005 and Bihar Police Manual. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein, they have enclosed the application filed by the petitioner. From the same it would transpire that the petitioner had only ticked the column of most backward category but in fact in his own handwriting also he has filled up his category as Atyant Picchada Warg(most backward category). While claiming his reservation for appointment on the post of Constable. That apart the respondents have also Patna High Court CWJC No.8595 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2013 3 explained that in course of selection which was based on certain parameters, the petitioner could secure only 11 marks whereas the last cut-off marks of the backward category to which the petitioner originally belonged was 13. There is no denial to this aspect that the petitioner belongs to the backward category and in fact it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the backward category. Thus in that view of the matter, it becomes clear that on account of misrepresentation made by the petitioner that he got selected and appointed as Constable against the quota of most backward category but as soon as when it was detected in course of verification the petitioner was subjected to a show cause notice as per the terms and conditions of the application form:- ^^eSa izekf.kr djrk@djrh gwW fd mij nh x;h lwpuk,a rFkk layXu izek.k i= lgh gSA feF;k ik;s tkus ij esjh mEehnokjh ,oa fu;qfDr fcuk dkj.k ds jn~n dh tk ldrh gSA eSa ;g ?kks"k.kk djrk@djrh gwW fd esjs fo:n~/k Fkkus esas ;k U;k;ky; esa dksbZ QkStnkjh ekeyk yafcr ugha gSA** and was terminated from service because it was found that the petitioner did not belong to the most backward category and had actually Patna High Court CWJC No.8595 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2013 4 made mis-representation by filling up in his application form that he belonged to most backward category. In any event, the petitioner on the basis of his marks secured as backward category candidate could not have been appointed and that is how the impugned order the following reasons have been recorded for termination of service of the petitioner: ^^eksfrgkjh ftykns’k la[;k 532 @2012 foKkiu la[;k &01@2004 esa eksfrgkjh ftyk ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dzekad 26378 Jh jfoUnz dqekj dks vLFkk;h flikgh ds :i esa fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA jfoUnz dqekj us vius vkosnu i= esa viuh tkfr oxZ dkWye esa vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ vafdr fd;k FkkA buds }kjk vius vkosnu i= esa vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ tkfr ds dkj.k csYVzku }kjk rS;kj dEI;wVjd‘r ekLVj pkVZ esa Hkh buds uke ds lkeus vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ fy[kk x;k FkkA rRdkyhu v/;{k] pEikj.k {ks= flikgh p;u cksMZ }kjk rS;kj es/kk lwph esa Hkh budk dzekad 26378 vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ dh Js.kh esa FkkA es/kk lwph esa uke vafdr gksus ds mijkUr budh fu;qfDr vLFkk;h flikgh ds :i esa bl ’krZ ds lkFk fd;k x;k Fkk fd Hkfo"; esa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ik;s tkus ij fcuk dkj.k crk;s lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;sxkA vH;FkhZ jfoUnz dqekj dzekad 26378 ds tkfr izek.k i= ds voyksdu ls Kkr gqvk gS fd ;s ;kno tkfr ds gSa ,oa fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 dh Js.kh esa vkrs gSA ;g tkurs gq, fd ;s fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 esa vkrs gSA] bUgksaus tku cq>dj vius vkosnu i= esa viuh dksfV vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ fy[kk] ftl dkj.k os dEI;wVj esa rS;kj ekLVj pkVZ ,oa es/kk lwph esa =qfV gqbZA es/kk lwph esa =qfV ds fy, vH;FkhZ iw.kZ :is.k nks"kh gSA vH;FkhZ 26378 jfoUnz dqekj fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 ds Js.kh esas vkrs gSa fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 dh Js.kh esa vafre fu;qDr vH;FkhZ flikgh dk izkIrkad 13 vkSj tUe frfFk 01-01-1981 gSA vH;FkhZ 26378 jfoUnz dqekj dk izkIrkad 11 vkSj tUe frfFk 11-01-1983 gSa fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 dh Js.kh esa lHkh moiyC/k fjfDr;ksa dks dh izfdz;k dh tk jgh gSA fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&2 dh Js.kh esa es/kk lwph esa izkIrkad 26378 jfoUnz dqekj ls Patna High Court CWJC No.8595 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2013 5 ojh; dbZ vH;FkhZ gS] ftlls fiNM+k oxZ vuqlwph&23 dh Js.kh esa vHkh budh fu;qfDr ek; ugha gks ldrh gSA vr% buds }kjk lefiZr tkfr izek.k i= ds xgu voyksdu ,oa buds }kjk tkucq>dj vius vkosnu esa xyr lwpuk nsus ds vkjksi esa bUgsa fnukad 23-03-2012 ds lsok ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA** In view of the aforementioned submission, this Court does not find any error in the said impugned order inasmuch as it was the logical outcome of the specific undertaking given by the petitioner in his application form itself. There was no question of any departmental proceeding to be conducted against the petitioner because the caste certificate of his being most backward category was found to be false or forged, and as such his appointment had to be cancelled as per his own undertaking given in his application. The petitioner does not deny this aspect that he does not belong to the most backward category and in fact it is his case that by inadvertence he had filled the category as most backward category though he belonged to backward category. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot hold that the petitioner’s appointment could have been retained only because he got appointed by giving a false Patna High Court CWJC No.8595 of 2012 (3) dt.29-04-2013 6 declaration of his case specially when persons having higher marks to him in the backward category could not be appointed and as such retaining the petitioner in service could itself amounted to discrimination to other meritorious candidates. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)