The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK FAO No.430 of 2019 Ratnakar Giri …. Appellant Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Respondents Mr. S. Jena, AGA Ms. R. Mohapatra, Advocate (Respondent No. 4) CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.03.2024 Order No 08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
again approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15018 of 2008 and this Court vide order dtd.31.10.2008 directed D.I. of Schools to take effective step for redressal of his grievances. 4.1. It is contended that on receipt of the order, D.I. of Schools directed the Managing Committee, who is the competent authority to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the Appellant. But when the Managing Committee declined to initiate any proceeding against the Appellant on the ground that the certificates produced by the Appellant at the time of his appointment is genuine one, on the face of such step taken by the Managing Committee salary of the Appellant when was not released w.e.f. March, 2010, Appellant claiming release of the arrear salary and current salary approached the Tribunal by filing the application in GIA Case No. 472 of 2012. But the Tribunal vide the impugned Judgment dismissed the claim of the Appellant by holding that the Appellant since has not passed his I.A. examination and he has submitted a fraudulent document, he is not eligible and entitled to get any relief. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that since by utilising the I.A. certificate, Appellant prosecuted B.A./B.Ed., there was no occasion on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Appellant has not passed the I.A. examination and he has produced a fraudulent document. It is also contended that since the order of approval so passed by the D.I. of Schools on 29.04.1993 was never recalled or cancelled, Appellant is eligible to get the benefit of salary, which has been wrongly rejected by the Tribunal. 5. Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the Appellant was appointed as against the post of Headmaster with having qualification of B.A./B.Ed. and his services was also approved by the D.I. of School vide order dtd.29.04.1996, but subsequently, when it was found that the Appellant has not passed his I.A. examination and he has produced a fraudulent certificate in that regard, after due enquiry, the Managing Committee of the School was directed to initiate a proceeding against the Appellant. When the Managing Committee declined to initiate the proceeding, Respondent No. 3 directed for stoppage of the salary of the Appellant w.e.f. March, 2010. 5.1. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since the Appellant has not passed his I.A. examination and basing on a fraudulent document, he prosecuted B.A./B.Ed., Appellant is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of his appointment and so also the order of approval passed in his favour. It is contended that since fraud has been committed by the Appellant by producing a fraudulent certificate in support of his passing I.A. examination, Appellant is not eligible and entitled to get any relief as fraud vitiates everything in view of the decision of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajendra D. Harmalkar Page 3 of 6 // 4 // (2022 SCC OnLine SC 486), Petitioners are not eligible and entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 6 of the Judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu has held as follows:- “6. The facts of the ne present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended unfair advantage of to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B -15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 5.2. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of IOCL in Para 29 has held as follows:- Page 4 of 6 // 5 // “29. In the present case, the original writ petitioner was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority for producing the fabricated/fake/forged SSLC. Producing the false/fake certificate is a grave misconduct. The question is one of a TRUST. How can an employee who has produced a fake and forged mark sheet/certificate, that too, at the initial stage of appointment be trusted by the employer? Whether such a certificate was material or not and/or had any bearing on the employment or not is Immaterial. The question is not of having an intention or mens rea. The question is producing the fake/forged certificate. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.” 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Appellant though in the meantime has been terminated from his service, but he is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of arrear salary till he was so terminated from his service. 7. Considering the stand taken in the appeal and the ground on which the claim of the Appellant was rejected, this Court passed the following order on 14.03.2024:- “2. Learned counsel for the Appellant is directed to provide copy of the certificate showing acquisition of I.A. qualification. 3. As requested by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, list this matter on 21st March, 2024.” 7. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the Appellant fairly contended that Appellant does not have the certificate showing his acquisition of I.A. qualification. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the fact that the Appellant has prosecuted B.A./B.Ed. basing on a fraudulent certificate produced by him in support of his qualification I.A., this Court is of the view that Appellant is not entitled to get any relief as by producing the fraudulent certificate he prosecuted B.A./B.Ed. and got the appointment as well as approval of his services. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned Judgment and dismiss the appeal. Sneha (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Mar-2024 15:42:18 Page 6 of 6
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State- Respondents and Ms. R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4. 3. The present appeal has been filed challenging Judgment dtd.09.04.2019 so passed by the State Education Tribunal (in short Tribunal) in GIA Case No. 472 of 2012. Vide the said Judgment; claim of the Appellant to get the benefit of arrear salary as well as current salary was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant contended that Appellant was appointed as against the post of Headmaster on 15.07.1987 with having the qualification of B.A/B.Ed.. It is contended that services of the Appellant was also approved by D.I. of Schools, Balasore-I under Annexure-1 vide order dtd.29.04.1993. It is contended that // 2 // while so continuing with due receipt of his salary as due and admissible, D.I. of Schools, Balasore-I without causing any enquiry issued an order on 11.04.2008 by asking the Managing Committee to terminate the Appellant from his services. Appellant being aggrieved, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8539 of 2008, which was disposed of on 24.06.2008 with a direction to the Appellant to approach the D.I. of Schools for consideration of his grievance. As the claim of the Appellant was not considered, he