The High Court
Case Details
1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.508 of 2023 Uma Shankar Pathak … … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 3. The Additional Collector (Establishment), Bokaro; 4. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bokaro …Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
of challenge before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5192 of 2010 and this Court, 2 . vide order dated 18.04.2016. quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that in absence of such consideration of the facts which has emanated from the first enquiry report, the order of dismissal dated 28.09.2010 sans such reasons and being violative of principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, petitioner represented before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro but the same was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2022 alleging therein that the order and direction of the High Court has been fully complied with and after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner, his case has not been found to be not genuine. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 4. Ms. Rinku Bhakat, learned counsel representing petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. The respondents authorities have not considered order and direction of this Court. Learned counsel further argues that in earlier order also, the Court was of the specific view that the subsequent School Leaving Certificate which had been submitted by the petitioner before the first enquiry officer and on which verification was found to be genuine, was not considered. When the matter was remitted back, though it has specifically been mentioned that the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the supplementary affidavit that the School Leaving Certificate was produced before the respondents authorities, but no consideration was shown to the said certificate. It appears that the petitioner had cleared the Class-VIII from the said School. In earlier order also it has clearly been mentioned that the Principal of the said school had found the said certificate to be genuine. However, later on when the matter was remitted back, the Deputy Commissioner found that upon interrogation, the said Principal disclosed that the said document was not genuine. Learned counsel submits that upon two different occasion, the same Principal has deposed her two different version and as such, on the statement of such person, the impugned order could not have been passed and as such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that a Peon is a Class-IV post and petitioner is working as such since the year 1997 and his service was regularized in the year 2005 itself. It was only when direction 3 . was passed for regularization of services, the respondents have come up with a plea that the documents submitted by the petitioner was forged and fabricated. Such plea was never raised earlier and only in order to harass the petitioner, respondents have raised such issue. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong reported in 1971(2) SCC 102; Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra and another analogous case reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84; Swami Bibhu Deo Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others passed in W.P.(S) No. 1248 of 2013; Nand Kumar Verma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2012) 3 SCC 580. 5. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by the respondednts. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III assisted by Mr. Ashwini Bhushan vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and further submits that when joining of the petitioner itself is based on fake and fabricated documents, no sympathy should be given to the petitioner. The petitioner has rightly been dismissed from the service. Learned counsel further argues that it is settled principles of law that when joining itself is based on fake and fabricated documents, such employee should be kicked out from the door he has entered. Learned counsel further argues that it was not the Principal of the said School who had to verify the documents rather the concerned authority had to examine the authenticity of the documents submitted by the petitioner. The said Principal at one occasion said that the documents were genuine and after order of this Court when said Principal was interrogated, she has refused and thereafter it has been opined that the said documents were forged and frivolous. No case is
Arguments
Ms. Rinku Bhakat, Advocate Ms. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC 05/15.06.2023 Heard Ms. Rinku Bhakat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. SC-III appearing on behalf of 2. 3. the State assisted by Mr. Ashwini Bhushan. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 450, dated 20.09.2022, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whereby application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and order of dismissal has been affirmed and for a direction to allow the petitioner to join service and to pay consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was working as a peon since the year 1997 and moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5796 of 2002 and after order and direction of this Court his service was regularized and he joined Bokaro Collectorate as a peon on 21.03.2005 on regular basis. Thereafter, on 23.12.2006 he was served with a chargesheet in Form-K wherein he was charged with the allegation that he had not submitted genuine certificate of Class-VIII of Government Middle School, Harla, Ratanpur and was put under suspension. After initiation of departmental proceed, a show-cause was filed by the petitioner and, thereafter, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chas was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from the service, The said order of dismissal was subject matter
Decision
made out and the writ petition is devoid of any merits. 7. After going through rival submissions of the parties and after perusing records of the case, I find that this writ petition needs interference for the following facts and reasons: i. ii. The impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law as the same is cryptic and capricious. Even though there is specific direction by this Court to consider case of the petitioner after giving ample opportunity of hearing, the documents produced by the petitioner was never considered rather consideration 4 . was shown to the contention of the Principal who was never examined in front of the petitioner. Any evidence or statement taken behind the back, cannot be considered to be evidence in the eyes of law. It appears that the concerned Deputy Commissioner in order to frustrate claim of the petitioner for regularization, has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. iii. This Court in the case of Swami Bibhu Deo Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(S) No. 1248 of 2013 has categorically held that only in cases where the inquiry report suffers from some technical lacuna, a denovo inquiry can be instituted. In all other cases, only a further inquiry can be conducted into the matter and not a fresh inquiry altogether. iv. 8. It has categorically been held and considered in catena of Judgments that at the fag end of service, genuineness of certificate cannot be raised. As a sequitur of the aforesaid observation, rules, guidelines and legal proposition, the impugned order issued vide Memo No. 450, dated 20.09.2022, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 9. Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)