High Court
Case Details
1 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143116-DB RESERVED Court No. - 3 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 642 of 2024 Appellant :- Riazul Hasan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Kumar Pandey,Shesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. (Per : Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.) 1. This Special Appeal was heard and judgment was reserved on 29.7.2024. However, thereafter the counsel for the respondent no.4, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya made a mention seeking permission to submit his short written submission which permission was granted and he submitted the same on 2.8.2024. 2. The appellant states that he passed Purva Madhyama in the year 1986, Uttar Madhyama in 1988 and also Shastri Degree, all from the respondent no.4-Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi1. He also obtained his B.Ed. Degree from Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. In the year 2004, the State Government imparted six months Special Teacher Training known as Special B.T.C.-2004 to candidates possessing teaching qualifications which training was also undergone by the petitioner- appellant. The petitioner-appellant appeared in the final exam thereafter and acquired a Special B.T.C. training certificate. The appellant was issued an appointment letter dated 26.12.2005 1 Vishwavidylaya 2 granting him appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School in District Jyotibha Phule Nagar, which appointment letter was issued by the Basic Education Officer, Amroha. The appointment was temporary for a period of one year’s probation. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioner-appellant was granted promotion as Headmaster of a Junior Basic School and was thereafter so working. By a letter dated 08.5.2014, the District Basic Education Officer directed the Block Education Officer of Development Block Joya, District Amroha to send the original service book of the petitioner-appellant alongwith photocopies of the educational qualification certificates. His salary was withheld from July 2014. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to appear in the office of the District Basic Education Officer on 16.7.2015 alongwith his appointment letter as well as the educational qualification certificates. 3. By an order dated 4.12.2015, the District Basic Education Officer cancelled the appointment of the appellant granted on 26.12.2005 and dismissed him from service. It is stated that in response to the notice sent to the appellant, he submitted his reply, but the order impugned placed reliance upon material obtained subsequent to the issuance of the notice, and the order impugned relied upon a verification report dated 24.11.2015, which was never supplied to the appellant. It is stated that the appellant holds a civil post under the State Government, and his appointment cannot be cancelled except after an inquiry in which he is required to be informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The contention is that the positive averment of the petitioner regarding his having obtained valid qualifying degrees from the 3 Vishwavidyalaya was required to be looked into. Further, in the writ petition, it was stated that the entire exercise conducted by the Basic Education Officer is a wholly unwarranted exercise. The petitioner-appellant was awarded the certificates by the Vishwavidyalaya and the verification is to be made from the Vishwavidyalaya and not from the college where the petitioner- appellant had studied. It was stated that the order impugned in the writ petition does not contain any verification from the Vishwavidyalaya. It was also stated that after obtaining Shastri Degree as well as B.Ed. Degree, on that basis the petitioner- appellant was admitted in the Special BTC Training 2004, and he was granted appointment upon successful completion thereof, but these averments were not specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Basic Education Officer. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar vs. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology Ghurdauri & Ors.2 and a Division Bench judgment dated 31.1.2014 passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Parmi Maurya vs. State of U.P. & Ors.3 to buttress his submissions in favour of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has placed reliance upon an order passed by this Court on 1.2.2012 in Criminal Writ- Public Interest Litigation No.18498 of 2011 (Sachin Rana & Anr. vs. State of U.P. Ors.)4, by which this Court had issued a mandamus to the concerned authorities to verify whether the certificates issued by the Vishwavidylaya, which were produced for securing admissions of candidates, were genuine or forged and 2 Neutral Citation No.-2024 INSC 309 3 Neutral Citation No.- 2014:AHC:18396 DB 4 PIL 4 if the same were found to be forged, to take action, including by lodging of FIRs against the said persons and also for removing them from service which they may have eventually obtained on the basis of those forged certificates. Necessary directions were also issued to the District Basic Education Officer of all districts. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that acting upon the said directions of the Court, steps were mechanically taken by the District Basic Education Officer and after affording a perfunctory opportunity of hearing to the appellant, his appointment was cancelled and he was dismissed from service. 8. In the short written submission submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4, it has been stated as follows:-
Decision
“The above Special Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2015 of the District Basic Education Officer, Amroha by which the appointment of the appellant-petitioner has been cancelled and services have been terminated on account of Farzi Certificates of Purv Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama Examination as the documents relating to Purv Madhyama Examination of appellant-petitioner is not available in the record and Roll No. 21013 of Uttar Madhyama Examination-1988 has not been allotted by the University. It is on consideration of the aforesaid plea on behalf of counsel for respondent no.4, the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 27.2.2024. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no information infirmity or illegality in the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge and the same deserves to be affirmed and appeal against the said judgment is liable to be dismissed.” 9. On perusal of the record of this appeal, it appears that in the counter-affidavit in the writ petition on behalf of the respondent 5 no.3, Basic Education Officer, it is admitted that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an appointment letter dated 26.12.2005 issued by the respondent no.3, Basic Education Officer. It is also admitted that the appellant was promoted on the post of a Headmaster in Primary School and was working on a promotional post. Evidently, after a period of one year of probation, the appellant's services were confirmed. 10. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.12.2015 reflects that the order has been passed on the basis of directions of the Court contained in the order dated 1.2.2012 passed in the PIL, and that notices were issued to the appellant on 6.7.2015 and 22.7.2015 by the Basic Education Officer, whereafter the appellant had appeared on 23.7.2015 and submitted his written submissions. Thereafter, the documents were again sent for verification to the Degree College where the appellant had allegedly studied. By means of a registered letter issued by the Principal of the Degree College on 24.11.2015, the marksheets/certificates were stated to be forged. Accordingly, a direction was passed for cancelling appellant's appointment from the date of his appointment and dismissing him from service. 11. As stated above, the petitioner-appellant was an employee who was confirmed in service after completing his period of probation and was admittedly working as a Headmaster of a school. On record of this appeal are the photocopies of the certificates as well as mark-sheets of the Vishwavidyalaya in respect of Purva Madhyama Examination 1986 and Uttar Madhyama Examination 1988. There is also a mark-sheet and a certificate issued by the Vishwavidyalaya in the name of the 6 petitioner-appellant for Shastri Examination. Also on record is a photocopy of the degree of Bachelor of Education in the name of the petitioner-appellant purportedly issued by Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. A pass certificate of Special BTC Training (Institutional Examination) 2004 in the name of the petitioner-appellant is also enclosed. There is also a reply submitted by the petitioner-appellant to the Basic Education Officer in response to the letter No. B(1)/16582 dated 6/8.07.2015 in which a letter dated 8.8.2015 sent by the Degree College was stated to be false and vague. It was stated that when everything was verified by the Office of the Basic Education Officer as well as D.I.E.T.5 in respect to the certificates of Purva Madhyama and Uttar Madhyama from the Vishwavidyalaya which were correct and received by the Office of the Basic Education Officer and, therefore, the statement of the petitioner-appellant should be taken to be correct and the withheld wages should be released. However, thereafter, the termination order that was impugned in the writ petition was passed. The copy of the order impugned in the writ petition was also endorsed to the petitioner- appellant with the direction to deposit the entire wages received by him by means of a bank draft. 12. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, the proceedings of the Examination Committee of the Vishwavidyalaya held on 26.10.2016 has been filed. As far as the petitioner's case is concerned, it refers to a letter dated 3.9.2016 sent by the Basic Education Officer to the University in respect of the petitioner. The decision of the Examination Committee is that 5 District Institute of Education and Training 7 the page of Purva Madhyama of 1986 and Shastri pertaining to the roll number was not available; and, in respect of Uttar Madhyama of 1988, the Roll No.21013 was not allotted to the petitioner, therefore it was fraudulent. However, apparently this exercise of verification from the Vishwavidyalaya was undertaken by the Basic Education Officer much after passing of the order impugned in the writ petition and only after filing of the writ petition by the petitioner. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the order impugned in the writ petition does not state that whether the certificates submitted by the petitioner and allegedly issued by the Vishwavidyalaya were verified by the Vishwavidyalaya. The certificates of Purva Madhyama, Uttar Madhyama and Shastri have been enclosed by the petitioner alongwith the affidavit in this appeal. In response to the letter/notice of the Basic Education Officer dated 6/8.07.2015, the petitioner had categorically mentioned that the certificates were verified by the Office of the Basic Education Officer from the Vishwavidyalaya or from D.I.E.T. which were found to be correct. 14. The directions given by this Court in the aforestated PIL are, inter alia, as follows. “Looking to the magnitude of this problem as highlighted by these annexures, we are issuing a mandamus to all the DIETs in all the districts in U.P. to get it issued by verified whether the certificates Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal which were produced for securing admissions of candidates were genuine or forged and if the same are found to be forged, to take action, including by lodging of FIRs against the said persons and also for removing them from service which they may have eventually obtained on the basis of these forged certificates. The Basic 8 Shiksha Adhikari in all districts are also directed to get verified from the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal whether the certificates used for getting Shiksha Mitra appointments have actually been issued by these bodies or they are forged. In case of problems, in conducting this exercise with regard to all candidates who furnish certificates from the Sampurnanand Sanskrit and Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal, the exercise may be carried out in a phased manner, starting from the recent results and going backwards to earlier years, at least across a ten year period. University, Varanasi (emphasis added) 15. Therefore, in the aforesaid directions in the PIL, firstly a direction was issued to D.I.E.T in all the districts in Uttar Pradesh to get the certificates issued by the Vishwavidyalaya and another institutions verified to determine whether they were genuine or forged and if the same are forged, to take action, including by lodging of FIRs against the said persons and also for removing them from service which they may have eventually obtained on the basis of the forged certificates. Further, the Basic Education Officers of all districts were directed to get verified from the Vishwavidyalaya whether the certificates used for getting Shiksha Mitra appointments had actually been issued by the University or were they forged. 16. It is noted that neither in the order impugned in the writ petition nor in the counter affidavit is there any mention of FIR being lodged against the petitioner by the Basic Education Officer. Further, there is no reference of any information received from D.I.E.T regarding the verification/validity of the certificates submitted by the petitioner that were purportedly issued by the Vishwavidyalaya. Moreover, in the impugned order, the certificates are not stated to have been verified directly from the Vishwavidyalaya. Thus, the validity or otherwise of the certificates 9 submitted by the petitioner and purportedly issued by the Vishwavidyalaya was inconclusive on the date the impugned order was passed. The order impugned in the writ petition specifically refers to the order passed by the Court in the PIL as being the basis for having proceeded against the petitioner. It is not as if an independent or impartial body or Committee was entrusted the task of actually verifying the certificates from the Vishwavidyalaya itself or even that the Basic Education Officer had verified the certificates directly from the Vishwavidyalaya. There is no such evidence in the order impugned in the written petition nor is it mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Basic Education Officer that the certificates were verified from the Vishwavidyalaya prior to passing of the impugned order dated 04.12.2015. 17. Annexure CA-1 to the written petition that is filed alongwith this appeal, contains a handwritten note under a letter-head of Shri Ramkumar Singh Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya dated 8.6.2015 which bears no stamp of the Principal but only a signature in which it is stated that in Purva Madhyama of 1986 pertaining to the petitioner, there is the name of Chandrapal Singh having the roll number 27039. Further, with regard to Uttar Madhyama of the year 1988, the roll number alleged to be allotted to the petitioner was stated to be not allotted by the college. Further, Annexure CA-1 also contains a letter dated 24.11.2015 under the letter head of the same College, reiterating the statement made in the previous letter dated 8.6.2015. However, though this letter bears the stamp of the Principal, it is signed by some person on behalf of the Principal. Evidently and admittedly, the letter dated 24.11.2015 allegedly issued on behalf of the Principal of the Degree College was never given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order impugned in the writ petition. 10 18. In the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant, the Supreme Court has held that termination from service, under the circumstances, without holding disciplinary inquiry was not justified. 19. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Parmi Maurya (supra), this Court was considering an intra-court appeal against an order of a learned Judge who had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala6. This Court held that the case of the appellant therein was distinguishable from the facts of the case in R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra). It was held that the charge of misconduct has to be duly established and since no disciplinary inquiry was held, the charge was never proved. 20. Relying upon Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.7 distinguished the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav8, and held that the termination of the appellant therein without an inquiry or hearing was illegal and invalid. 21. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to a judgment dated 1.8.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Etc. v. Prohlad Guha Etc.9 in which the Supreme Court held that the benefit of Article 311 is not available in the case of fraud. The case before the Supreme Court in Prohlad