Jiban Krishna Das v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). It has been submitted that the facts and the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7969 of 2012 Prasanna Kumar Das .......... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ------ Versus ........ Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner For the State Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate J.C. to G.P.III : : ------ I.A. No.3845 of 2013 2/24.06.2013: In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for hearing and disposal
Decision
of the writ petition in terms of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No.1188/2012 (Jiban Krishna Das vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.). It has been submitted that the facts and the points involved in this case are exactly same as in the case of said Jiban Krishna Das and the writ petition deserves disposal in terms of the said order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection in fixing the writ petition for hearing at an early date. Considering the grounds mentioned in the application, this I.A. is allowed. The office is directed to list W.P.(S) No.75/2013 on 2nd September, 2013 under the heading 'For Admission'. I.A. No.3816 of 2013 stands disposed of. Shamim/ (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7969 of 2012 Prasanna Kumar Das .......... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ------ Versus ........ Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI ------ For the petitioner For the State Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate J.C. to G.P.III : : ------ 3/24.6.2013: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 3108 dated 10.12.2011, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur (respondent No.2), whereby the petitioner’s services have been terminated on the ground that though he belongs to the Other Backward Classes (O.B.C) category, he had got appointment under the Scheduled Caste (S.C.) category. The petitioner has also prayed for his reinstatement in the service with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the District of Sahibganj (now Pakur) after following the legal procedures long back on 1.1.1988. However, in the panel prepared after the selection, the petitioner’s name was shown in the “Harizan-Purush” category. The petitioner had immediately filed representation pointing out the said typographical mistake. The respondents, thereafter, corrected the records and never mentioned the petitioner as “Harizan” in any of the service records including the service book. The petitioner, accordingly, was allowed to serve on his post without any demur. A seniority list of the teachers was prepared and published on 2.7.2005 in which the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No. 499 specifically showing him belonging to the O.B.C category. Surprisingly, a show cause notice dated 3.12.2011 -2- was issued to the petitioner after more than two decades, alleging that his appointment was made under the “Harizan” category, though he belongs to the O.B.C category, asking him as to why his services be not terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 8.12.2011 stating, inter alia, that he has never misrepresented himself as "Harijan". On the contrary, he had pointed out the error in the panel showing him under "Harijan" category. On his representation, the records were corrected. He was, thereafter, never shown as “Harizan” in any of the service records. The respondents also did not serve any such charge against the petitioner and suddenly passed the impugned order dated 10.12.2011, whereby the petitioner’s services have been terminated. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. The allegation against the petitioner is wholly unfounded. He has never misrepresented himself as “Harizan” for obtaining employment. His appointment was not under the Scheduled Caste category. There was an error on the part of the respondents in showing the petitioner’s name in the panel under “Harizan-Purush” heading. The petitioner had brought the error to the notice of the respondents by filing representation immediately on 18.1.1988. Since thereafter no service record or the Government record reflects the petitioner as “Harizan”. In the seniority list published in the year 2005, the petitioner has been specifically shown in the O.B.C. category. The respondents never raised any such objection for about 23 years. By the impugned -3- order, the petitioner’s services have been suddenly terminated on frivolous ground and that too without following the due procedures of law. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of termination can be issued only after holding a departmental enquiry, as provided under Rule 8 of the Bihar State Nationalized Primary Teachers Appointment and Disciplinary Proceeding Rules, 1994 [hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules of 1994”] - which has also been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994 specifically provides that the order of termination from services cannot be passed without initiating a departmental proceeding. The impugned order is violative of the said mandatory rule as well as the principle of natural justice and is wholly unsustainable. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C category, but he obtained appointment under “Harizan” category. He has committed fraud in collusion with the then Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj and the in-charge clerk. However, it has been admitted that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by serving any such charge on him. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions as well as the facts and materials on record, I find that before passing the impugned order, no departmental proceeding, as required under Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994, was initiated against him. Only a show cause notice was issued, which was replied by the petitioner. Merely issuing a show cause -4- notice does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994. The impugned order is violative of the said statutory rule, as no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by framing any charge before passing the impugned order. Since the said order of termination is based on certain allegation, it amounts to dismissal from service without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India besides being violative of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1994. Further, the respondents have strangely raised an issue after lapse of about 23 years and that too without any allegation that the petitioner had ever misrepresented himself as "Harijan" for obtaining employment. Raising such stale issue after lapse of more than two decades is also wholly unjustified. Exactly in the similar case - Jiban Krishna Das vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S) No.1188/2012] - the petitioner Jiban Krishna Das had challenged the said memo no.3108 dated 10.12.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur. After hearing the parties, this Court allowed that writ petition and quashed the order with respect to the said petitioner. This case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned memo no.3108 dated 10.12.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Pakur (respondent no.2), so far as the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in the service forthwith with all consequential benefits including his full back salary. Shamim/ (Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)