Pramod Kumar …. … v. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ranchi. Director
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7232 of 2019 Pramod Kumar …. …. Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Versus State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Ranchi. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Deputy Commissioner, Godda. Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda. District Welfare Officer, Godda. District Education Officer, Godda. District Superintendent of Education, Godda. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK ------ : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr.SC-III
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-III ------ 10/ 26.07.2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1555 dated 03.11.2018, whereby the representation of petitioner, pursuant to direction by this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 5299 of 2012, has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 3. As per factual matrix, the petitioner after being appointed as Assistant Teacher joined the post on 27.5.1988 in Middle School, Mohani, Podiyahat in the district of Godda. A complaint was lodged by one Mangal Sah that the actual name of petitioner is Jagdish Sah and he impersonated himself to be Pramod Kumar. However, upon enquiry, the District Superintendent of Education found the allegation to be false and baseless. On the same allegation, the complainant Mangal Sah lodged an FIR, being Thakurgangti P.S. Case No. 122 of 2007, wherein also the final form was submitted finding the case to be false and baseless. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a case before the National Human Rights Commission and on the basis of which, the District Superintendent of Education stopped the salary of the petitioner vide memo dated 30.8.2010. The 2 petitioner challenged the same in W.P.(S) No. 7098 of 2011, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of petitioner by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the District Superintendent of Education also lodged another FIR against the petitioner, being Lalmatia P.S. Case No. 6 of 2012, which was also ended with same result as that of the police case. However, in the meantime, a departmental enquiry was initiated for the same set of allegation and the same was culminated into dismissal of petitioner issued vide resolution dated 24.5.2012. Appellate authority has also confirmed the said resolution of penalty by his order dated 1.8.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5299 of 2012, which was
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2016 with a direction to start de novo enquiry from the stage of supply of copy of enquiry report and to take a concrete decision, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that instead of complying the aforesaid direction of this Court, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda issued a letter on 19.1.2017 calling upon the petitioner to provide his service details. The petitioner replied the same on 23.1.2017. Again the District Superintendent of Education, Godda issued letters dated 30.1.2017, 19.4.2017 and 10.7.2017 seeking explanation from the petitioner with respect to his service history. When the order of this Court dated 30.11.2016 was not complied with, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (Civil) No. 121 of 2018. During pendency of the contempt application, the respondents came with an office order dated 3.11.2018, whereby, it was concluded that the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable and hence, the same was rejected. Thereafter, the contempt application was also dropped in view of the said office order dated 3.11.2018 by giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same before appropriate forum. Now, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.11.2018 in the instant writ petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that in compliance of the Court’s order dated 30.11.2016, a de novo enquiry was started by issuing letter dated 19.1.2017 by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda asking the petitioner to produce the documents relating to his appointment. The petitioner also 3 replied the same by his letter dated 23.1.2017. Again letters were issued on 30.1.2017 and 19.4.2017. On perusal of the certificates submitted by the petitioner and the report submitted by the Principal, Primary Teachers’ Education College, Ghormara, Deoghar, it appears that the petitioner has produced the matric certificate issued by High School, Bhatkhoriya, which shows that he is resident of Village & P.O.- Baniadih, Block- Meharma, District- Godda and his date of birth is 8.8.1958, whereas the report submitted by the Circle Officer, Thakurgangti, Godda, it appears that the name of petitioner is Jagdish Sah @ Pramod Kumar, who passed the matric examination from High School, Bhatkhoriya, and his date of birth is 14.2.1962. It further appears from perusal of report of Principal, Teacher Education College, Ghormara, Deoghar, that the petitioner is resident of Village & P.O.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh. As such, it is evident from the reports produced by the petitioner, Circle Officer, Thakurgangti, Headmaster of High School, Bhatkhoriya, Headmaster of High School, Barhi, Hazaribag and Principal of Primary Teacher Education College, Ghormara were different, which clearly shows that illegality has been committed by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been terminated from service vide order under challenge dated 3.11.2018. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the impugned order dated 3.11.2018 is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that the direction of this Court has not been respected by the respondent-authority and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to defend his case and no de novo enquiry was ever conducted. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside also on the ground that for the same set of charges, two criminal cases were lodged and the same were finally found to be false and baseless in the final form submitted by the police, which themselves show that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not tenable and the same are fit to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, leaned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of impersonation. It was also alleged that his appointment was based on 4 forged and fabricated document. The allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved in de novo enquiry. Therefore, the service of the petitioner was put to an end after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, as would be evident from the impugned order dated 3.11.2018. Learned counsel justifying the impugned order submits that rightly the petitioner was terminated from service on the ground of impersonation and also on the ground of submission of fake documents. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the writ petition for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5299 of 2012, challenging his termination order dated 24.5.2012 and the same was disposed of with direction to the respondents to start a de novo enquiry from the stage of supplying the copy of enquiry report. (ii) In compliance of the Court’s order, the respondent started enquiry afresh calling upon the petitioner to produce all the certificates relating to his appointment. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply annexing all the documents. Thereafter, reports were called for from the concerned authority regarding veracity of the documents. (iii) It appears from the report submitted by the petitioner vis-à-vis other authorities that there is serious illegality in the certificates. The certificate submitted by the petitioner shows that his date of birth is 8.8.1958 whereas the report submitted by the Circle Officer shows that the petitioner’s name is Jagdish Sah @ Pramod Kumar, and his date of birth is 14.2.1962. It further appears from the report of Principal, Teacher Education College, Gormara that the petitioner is resident of Village & P.O.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh, whereas, the document submitted by the petitioner shows that he is resident of Village & P.O..- Baniadih, Block- Meharma, District- Godda. (iv) In view of the aforesaid variance and the illegality, the petitioner was dismissed after giving full opportunity to defend himself. (v) Merely because the criminal case was dropped as per final form, 5 the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained as the allegations against the petitioner were proved in the domestic enquiry. (vi) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders of this Court, in earlier round of litigation, were not complied with and there was no de novo enquiry conducted is totally misplaced. The order passed in earlier round of litigation has merged with the order passed in the contempt application. Already a liberty was given to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order and the same has been challenged in the present writ petition. (vii) Since, in de novo enquiry, it has been proved that the appointment of the petitioner was based on forged document, rightly the impugned order has been passed. 8. As a cumulative effect, no interference is warranted in the writ petition and the same lacks merit. Resultantly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)