High Court · 2012

This order will dispose of W.A. No.34 and 35 of 2012 as both the appeals have been filed against identical orders passed by learned Single Judge dismiss ing the writ petitions seeking direction to regularize the services of the appel lants and to pay them salary after quashing the order of termination of their se rvices. Since facts are identical in both cases, we may refer to record of Writ Appeal No.34 of 2012. The appellant applied for the post of Assistant Project En gineer in the Assam Textile Institute. He was given appointment for a period of four months under Regulation 3(F) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limita tion of Functions) Regulation, 1951 on 3rd May, 1995. The said appointment was e xtended from time to time. By order dated 7.4.2000, the order of extension of th e service of the appellant was withdrawn. Thereafter, order dated 11.8.2000 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner without any notice and without giving opportunity of being heard. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant a pproached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge did not find any ground to interfere as it was foun d that the appellant had no right to continue in service for the reasons given i n the order of termination. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order of termination dated 11.8.2000 shows that an inqu iry was conducted by the Director of Technical Education and it was found that the appellant did not possess the necessary qualification and the certificate fr om the AMIE was not genuine. It was further observed that there was no vacant po st and the certificates produced by the appellant from the Principal of Assam Te xtile Institute was tampered with. This observation was based on a report obtain ed by the Director of Technical Education from the Institute of Engineers (India ) Calcutta showing that the appellant failed to pass even Section (cid:28)A (cid:29) of the AMI E as against requirement of passing Section (cid:28)A (cid:29) as well as (cid:28)B (cid:29). Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgment dated 22.5.2009 i n a criminal case wherein the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Secti ons 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code for want of evidence that he forged the said certificate. The above submission cannot be accepted. In the said judgment, the appel lant was acquitted for want of examination of Director of Institute though it wa s proved that he had written letter declaring certificate in favour of the appel lant was forged. The said finding is as follows :- (cid:28)12. & & & &.We have gone through the Material Exhibit 2 and 5 carefully. Materia l Exhibit 2 was written to Dr. H.K. Das, Director Technical Education dated 17th April 2000 regarding the status of two candidates Chamedul Alam (T-042702) and Raju Mahanta (T-042717 where in referring to its earlier letter, i.e. Material E xhibit 5, it is stated that the particulars of two candidates enclosed with the letter of Dr. H.K. Das dated Feb. 25,2000 appears to be forged including the sig nature of the Deputy Director EEA. And in Material exhibit 5 it is stated that C hameudul Alam appears upto summer 1992 Examination and failed to secure full pas s in Section A (Non-diploma) and Raju Mahanta passed in Section A in summer 1990 Examination. Thereafter appeared and including Summer 1996 Examination in Secti on B and failed to pass Section B Examination. Thus, Material Exhibit 12 and 13 appears to be forged in view of Material Exhibit 2 and 5. Now, it is to be seen whether Material Exhibit 2 and 5 can be acted upon while the same has not been p roved by examining the issuing authority or its signatory. (cid:29) It is well settled that standard of proof required in a criminal case is higher and mere acquittal in criminal case was no bar to an otherwise wrong act of a person, which may be shown wrong by probabilities, being kept in view. In the present case, appointment of the appellant was on ad-hoc basis un der Regulation 3(F) of the Regulations which could not continue for indefinite p eriod. In terms of the appointment, his services could be terminated at any poin t of time. The order of appointment is as follows : Dated Kahilipara, the 3rd May/95 (cid:28) No.TEC.77/95/Pt/18 : Subject to discharge without notice and without assigning any reasons thereof and subject to satisfactory police verification report Md. C hamedul Alam is hereby appointed temporarily and until further orders for a peri od of 4 (four) months under Regulation 3(f) of the A.P.S.C. (L&F) Regulations, 1 951 as Assistant Project Engineer in the scale of pay of Rs.2275-60-2395-80-2875 -EB-100-3575-125-4450/- P.M. plus special pay of Rs.100/- p.m. and other allowan ces admissible under rules and posted at Assam Textile Institute, Guwahati again st the newly created post vide letter No.TEC.29/94/9, dt. 10.3.95, with effect f rom the date of taking over charge. (cid:29) In this view of the matter, there was no error in the view taken by lear ned Single Judge in upholding the termination of services of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Ho n’ble Supreme Court in G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujrat and others, (2006) 5 SCC 44 6 wherein the order of dismissal was set aside on account of acquittal in the cr iminal case taking into account the fact that even in departmental enquiry, no e vidence was available against him to prove misconduct. The judgment relied upon is on different set of facts. Therein it was he ld that there was no evidence in the departmental proceedings to prove the misco nduct. It was not the case of a temporary employee appointed under Regulation 3( f). In the present case, the appellant was temporarily appointed and it was found that he had got the appointment by submitting forged certificate. Though t he appellant was acquitted of the charge of forgery in absence of examination of the Director who had given a letter that the certificate was forged. Thus, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere with the or der of termination. There is no merit in the appeals. Dismissed.