Jharkhand High Court
Md. Masood Alam vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 September, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 JHA 940
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 7060 of 2019
Md. Masood Alam, aged about 48 years, son of late Md. Gulam Rasul, Resident
of Village-Gourikitta, PO-Kasba, PS-Mahagama, District-Godda (Jharkhand)
... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, PO-Godda, PS-Godda(T), District-Godda
3.The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, PO-Godda, PS-Godda(T),
District-Godda ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.C. Roy, AC to SC(L&C)-I
-----
6/21.09.2020. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.C. Roy, the learned AC to SC(L&C)-I appearing for the respondent State.
2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Urdu Teacher by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda vide letter dated 29.01.29015. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner joined his duty on 24.02.2015 as an Assistant Teacher, Primary Urdu, Village-Parbatta, Block- Basantrai, District-Godda. All of a sudden, the District Superintendent of Education, Godda, handed over dismissal order dated 19.05.2015 to the petitioner on 08.06.2018 on the ground of concealment of information required 2 in Para-10 of the appointment letter.
5. He assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted by the Sessions Court for life imprisonment. Against that the petitioner has preferred criminal appeal in the High Court being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.654 of 2006. He submits that the petitioner has been granted bail by the High Court in the criminal appeal. He further submits that without awaiting the result of the criminal appeal, the dismissal order has ben passed without following the due process of law and in violation of principle of natural justice. He is disputing Annexure-B which is the affidavit of petitioner annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
6. Per contra, Mr. P.C. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner was involved in Sessions Trial Case No.04 of 92 and 69 of 05 (Mahagama P.S. Case No.41/1990, corresponding to G.R. No.460/1990) and convicted on 14.02.2006 for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 and 304 of IPC. He further submits that merely filing of the criminal appeal will not exonerate the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner by way of suppressing the criminal case, has obtained the appointment letter and under the clause-10 of the appointment letter, the impugned order has been passed. There is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Court has perused the Annexure-1 which is the appointment letter of the petitioner. In clause-10, it has been clearly stated that if any criminal case is pending and the service has been granted and it comes to the knowledge of the authority concerned, the appointment letter shall be cancelled. Merely obtaining/granting of bail by the High Court is not a ground for not passing an impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner has suppressed this fact that he is 3 involved in the criminal case. As petitioner was involved in Sessions Trial Case No.04 of 92 and 69 of 05 (Mahagama P.S. Case No.41/1990, corresponding to G.R. No.460/1990) and convicted on 14.02.2006 for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 and 304 of IPC and it was a condition precedent to issue appointment letter in view of clause-10 that suppression of criminal case and sentence will lead to cancellation of appointment letter. Merely granting bail by the High Court is not the right of the petitioner to continue in service in violation of clause-10 of appointment letter. The petitioner was aware of the clause-10 and he by suppressing the criminal case obtained the appointment which clearly shows that the petitioner's intention was not bonafide. Annexure- B is signed by the petitioner or not is a disputed question of fact which can be decided by a competent court of law.
8. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, no relief can be extended to the petitioner, hence, the writ petition [W.P. (S) No. 7060 of 2019] stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/