Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 23 March, 2017
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4445 of 2011
with
W.P.(S) No. 4451 of 2011
with
W.P.(S) No. 4464 of 2011
1.Ashok Kumar Dangi, S/o Sakhichand Dangi, R/o Daruatu, P.O-Kamta,
P.S. + Dist-Chatra.
2.Kamlesh Kumar Dangi, S/o Sri Mushafir Dangi, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.
Gidhour, District Chatra.
3.Nandkishor Singh, S/o Lekha Mahto, R/o Phatalgada, P.O. & P.S-
Phatalgada, District Chatra.
4.Md. Ishityak, S/o Md. Mumtaz, R/o-Barwadih, P.O. & P.S-Phatalgada,
District Chatra.
5.Md. Wasiuddin, S/o Late Shafiuddin, R/o-Barwadih, P.O. & P.S-
Phatalgada, District Chatra.
6.Azimuddin, S/o Late Abdul Karim, R/o Noor Nagar, P.O. & P.S-Chatra,
District Chatra.
7.Ganesh Dangi, S/o Late Bhuli Mahto, R/o Chautha, P.O. Nawadih, P.S-
Phatalgada, District Chatra. ...... Petitioners ( in W.P.(S) No. 4445 of 2011)
1.Rajendra Prasad Dangi, S/o Ritu Ram Dangi, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.
Gidhour, District Chatra.
2.Jagdih Dangi, S/o Charan Mahto, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour,
District Chatra.
3.Indradeo Dangi, S/o Suram Mahto, R/o Mandhania, P.O. Mandhania &
P.S. Itkhori, District Chatra.
4.Suresh Ram Dangi, S/o Fagu Mahto, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour,
District Chatra.
5.Bodhnath Dangi, S/o Late Gobardhan Mahto, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.
Gidhour, District Chatra.
6.Kawindra Dangi, S/o Late Pokhan Mahto, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.
Gidhour, District Chatra.
7.Shewali Dangi, S/o Nageshwar Ram Dangi, R/o Chour Mohalla, P.O. &
P.S-Chatra, District Chatra.
8.Aditya Kumar, S/o Ramdeo Dangi, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S. Gidhour,
District Chatra.
9. Ramdash Ram Dangi, S/o Late Akal Mahto, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S.
Gidhour, District Chatra.
10. Jay Kumar Prasad, S/o Nageshwar Ram, R/o Saharjam, P.O. Karani, P.S.
Itkhori, District Chatra. ...... Petitioners ( in W.P.(S) No. 4451 of 2012)
1. Satyender Narayan Sinha, S/o Ishwarya Prasad, R/o Arugerwa, P.O.
Arugerwa, P.S-Hunterganj, District-Chatra.
2.Ratan Singh, S/o Sri Prayag Singh, R/o Chainpur, P.O-Peltoul, P.S.
Rajpur, District Chatra.
3.Sri Satyadeo Pandey, S/o Chaman Pandey, R/o Gidhour, P.O. & P.S-
Gidhour, District Chatra. ...... Petitioners ( in W.P.(S) No. 4464 of 2011)
Versus
2
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2.Director, Primary Education, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3.District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional Education
Officer, P.O. & P.S-Chatra, District-Chatra.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S-Chatra, District-Chatra.
5. Bihar School Examination Board, Patna. ....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
----------
For the Petitioners : M/s Rajiv Ranjan, (Sr. Adv.) & Manoj
Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Neelam Tiwari, J.C. to Sr. S.C-I.
For the Respondent no.5(BSEB) : M/s S.P. Roy & Pankaj Kumar, Adv.
Dated: 23rd March, 2017
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
Since the reliefs sought for in all the writ petitions are identical, with
the consent of the respective counsels, all the writ petitions are heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order/judgment.
2. In the aforesaid writ applications, the petitioners have prayed for
quashing of the order dated 28.07.2011 whereby the service of the
petitioners have been terminated with retrospective effect and further prayer
has been made for grant of consequential benefits by quashing the impugned
orders.
3. The brief facts, as depicted in the writ applications are that petitioners
after having been selected for appointment by the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission Exam, 2003 were appointed as teachers in different Primary
and Middle Schools in the district of Chatra. After being appointed on the
aforesaid posts, the petitioners started discharging their services to the
satisfaction of the authorities without any hindrances. It is needless to
mention that petitioners after proper verification of the training certificate
and Matric certificate were appointed to the said posts. During their
continuance, at the initial stage salary of the petitioners was stopped on the
allegation of producing forged certificate but after being verified from the
Bihar School Examination Board (in short 'B.S.E.B'.), their salary was
released. But to the utter misfortune, the services of the petitioners were
terminated by the order dated 28.07.2011 by the respondent no.3- District
Superintendent of Education, Chatra on the ground that the certificate of the
petitioners are found to be forged. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
3
impugned order dated 28.07.2011 pertaining to termination from services,
the petitioners in different writ application have knocked the door of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their
grievances.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted with vehemence
that the respondents did not exercise due care and diligence before issuance
of impugned order of termination which is violative of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel further submits that
petitioners having been appointed by Jharkhand Public Service Commission
by undergoing the process of selection on merit could not have been
removed by issuance of impugned order by the District Superintendent of
Education in such a cavalier fashion, which smacks of arbitrary exercise of
power and otherwise unsustainable in the eye of law.
5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter
affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.3 wherein it has been submitted
that the impugned order of termination has been issued in the light of the
decision taken by the District Education Establishment Committee on
20.07.2011under agenda four on the basis of joint enquiry report. Before this decision respondent no.3, D.S.E., Chatra asked for the show cause from the petitioners and after perusal of the show causes filed by the petitioners the impugned order of termination has been passed. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that as per the condition of appointment which clearly stated that in the process of verification of training certificate from the concerned institute, if found false and if they have not got training from the genuine institutions their appointment will come to an end without any information, and they will be proceeded accordingly. Petitioners submitted affidavit at the time of joining in different schools after receiving the appointment letter. It has further been submitted that in the joint enquiry report, the training certificate of the petitioners were found false, therefore, District Superintendent of Education, Chatra in the light of the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee asked show cause from the petitioners. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that in the meeting of the District Education Establishment Committee, Chatra dated 18.09.2009 under agenda no.2 decision has been taken for verification of the training of the petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra has deputed District Land Acquired Officer as a Magistrate and Area Education Officer, 4 Chatra as an Education Officer for verification of the training certificate. Both officers went to the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna and verified and submitted joint enquiry report vide memo dated 09.07.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra sent the enquiry report to the respondent no.3, the D.S.E, Chatra and ordered to put it before the District Education Establishment Committee vide memo dated 20.07.2011.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5- Bihar School Examination Board, wherein it has been submitted that so far as question of issuance of letter as contained in memo dated 17.12.2004 by the Board, it has been submitted that the same have been duly verified with the available connecting record i.e. the relevant issue register, wherein it has been found that the said letter bearing memo no.3549 dated 17.12.2004 has been issued by the Board on the relevant date i.e. on 17.12.2004 verifying the result of 167 students, containing in 22 pages, which was sent to the District Superintendent of Education cum Subdivisional Education Officer, Chatra, Jharkhand and the process of verification had been done on the basis of the relevant connecting records of the Board. Therefore, it is quite apparent that the letter bearing memo no.3549 dated 17.12.2004 had been issued rightly by the Board, verifying the result of 167 students as sought by the authority concerned at the relevant point of time, as evident from the relevant issue register. The relevant page of the issue register dated 17.12.2004 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that with respect to other letters referred under the order impugned as contained in memo dated 28.07.2011, vide Annexure-6, purported to be made available by the Board at the relevant point of time. So far as letter bearing no.2230 dated 25.01.2006 is concerned, it is stated that no such letter had been issued on 25.01.2006, rather on 25.01.2006 only two letters bearing letter nos.274 and 275 had been issued by the Board, as apparent from the relevant issue register, as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is stated that no such letter bearing no.586/2008 had been issued on 11.08.2008, rather letter bearing nos.7810 to 7832 had been issued by the Board, as apparent from the relevant issue register, as evident from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. So far as letter bearing no.8460 dated 30.10.2008 is concerned, it is stated that on 30.10.2008 the letter under reference, bearing letter no.8460 had been issued by the Board and that was 5 issued with respect to the verification for session 86-88 under code 8103 roll 142 and sent to District Superintendent of Education cum Subdivisional Education Officer, Chatra, Jharkhand, as evident from Annexure-D to the counter affidavit.
7. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent-BSEB, wherein the BSEB has taken a U-turn by submitting that the document enclosed with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Secretary, HRD, Jharkhand is incomplete, for example, letter no.3549 dated 17.12.2004 which has been enclosed as Annexure-D (i.e. from page 63 to 66 of the counter affidavit) is in 4 page, whereas as per issue register at the Board, the said letter was of 22 page and was in connection with verifying the result of 167 students regarding which it had earlier also been categorically stated by the Board through its earlier counter affidavit filed in the present case. Therefore, Annexure-D in the counter affidavit of the Secretary, HRD, Jharkhand does not inspire confidence and cannot form a basis for arriving at any particular conclusion. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the joint report (Annexure-N) as annexed with the counter affidavit of Secretary of HRD, State of Jharkhand has been verified by the Board and the factual position which has surfaced has been complied in a tabular form, as per Annexure-B to supplementary counter affidavit. Therefore, in the totality of the fact situation, the Board respectfully submits that the reference of one or the other contradictory and conflicting letters are of no use as fraud in the instant case had obviously been practiced by the beneficiaries and as such they do not deserve any equity in the present proceeding.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioners deserves to be considered afresh, and the order impugned so far termination of the petitioners dated 28.07.2011 is concerned, are hereby quashed, in view of the fact that the impugned order of dismissal from services from the post of teachers have been passed basing on contradictory findings given by the Bihar School Examination Board, more particularly, in view of the counter affidavit dated 09.09.2016 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.12.2016 and show cause affidavit dated 08.02.2017.
9. It would be in the fitness of things and expedient in the interest of justice to direct the respondents more particularly respondent nos.1 and 3 to examine the case of the petitioners, more particularly on the authenticity and 6 genuineness of Matriculation certificate obtained from Bihar School Examination Board, and accordingly consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of the order.
10. With the aforesaid direction, writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Saket/-