Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2022
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1986 of 2016
Manoj Kumar Yadav ... ... ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra
3. The Superintendent of Police, Chatra
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Hunterganj,, District - Chatra
7. Sri Modan Yadav, son of Late Prabhu Gope, Resident of Village - Khunti
Kewal Kala, Hunterganj, District - Chatra
... ... ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, AC to GP-III 13/06.07.2022 Heard.
Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the memo no. 226/sa., dated 20.08.2015, issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, whereby and whereunder he has been removed from the post of Chaukidar/ Dighwar.
Case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as a Choukidar by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra vide letter no. 354, dated 20.06.2001 upon recommendation of the District Establishment Committee. Thereafter, he continued to work on the post for fifteen years. During the entire service period, no complaint was received from any corner and he worked to utter satisfaction of the respondents. It was only in the year 2012, anonymous complaint was received in the office of the Deputy Commissioner that appointment of the petitioner was based on fake documents and false affidavit. The matter was inquired into and, thereafter, petitioner was dismissed from the service by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this court by way of this writ petition.
RC/ 2 Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that though regular departmental proceeding was initiated but neither charges were framed against the petitioner nor ample opportunity of hearing was given to him and impugned order was issued, which is nonest in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submits that even in the enquiry, petitioner was never given any opportunity to place his case rather by way of show-cause reply, it was brought to the notice that the school from which certificate was obtained was never inquired rather verification of certificate was done from the Middle School, Goradih where petitioner never studied. It is specific case of the petitioner that he studied in Dev Bhagat School, Gaya and transfer certificate was issued from the said school. Nowhere it has been brought on record whether Head Master or any competent person from that school was ever consulted regarding issuance of other certificate. Learned counsel submits that as appointment of the petitioner was never questioned at initial stage and he continued for fifteen years, merely on the basis of anonymous complaint the same cannot be turned down. Further it has been argued that order of dismissal amounts to civil consequences and any order involving civil consequences, the provisions of natural justice has to be adhered to. Further it has been argued that the impugned order is fit to be set aside and petitioner be reinstated in service.
Per contra counter affidavit has been filed.
Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned counsel representing State vehemently opposes contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the domestic enquiry it was found that the certificate submitted by the petitioner was fake and even in the affidavit, wrong statement had been made and as such his employment was based on fake certificates and on being satisfied, the competent authority has rightly dismissed the petitioner from the service. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee reported in AIR 1968 SC 266 and submits that since petitioner has admitted his guilt in the domestic enquiry, there was no need for any regular proceeding and as such impugned order requires no interference.
RC/ 3 Be that as it may, having gone through submission of the parties as well as documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:
(i) Petitioner was appointed by the District Establishment Committee after following the procedures in the year 2001. At the time of appointment, the certificates were verified and examined. Nowhere has it been found that the certificates produced by the petitioner was fake or fabricated.
(ii) Regarding the mistake committed in the affidavit, when it was brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, the same was rectified and it is an admitted fact that the same was done by the Karamchari and not by the petitioner by slip of pen.
(iii) From the documents it is crystal clear that petitioner had obtained certificate from the School namely Dev Bharti School, Gaya. The said school was never approached. Neither Principal nor any other responsible officer/staff from the school management was ever consulted rather the respondents approached the Middle School, Goradih, for verification of genuineness of certificate where petitioner never studied.
(iv) It is settled principles of law that any order visiting with civil or evil consequences, the provisions of principles of natural justice has to be adhered to. Here, the respondents, without adhering to cardinal principles of natural justice and without regular proceeding, has passed the order snatching livelihood of the petitioner, who is a Class-IV employee, working to the post of Chowkidar.
(v) The reliance place by learned counsel for the respondents in the Judgment in the case of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee reported in AIR 1968 SC 266, is of no help. It is relevant to quote paragraph-19 of the said Judgment, which reads as under:
"19. We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justice, as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman. If the allegations are denied, by the workman, it is needless to state that the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called, by the management, must be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter must also be given an opportunity to examined himself and adduce any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea. But, if the workman admits his RC/ 4 guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence about the allegations, will, in our opinion, only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to the management to examine the workman himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence that he may choose."
In the instant case, the guilt was denied by the petitioner and admittedly no opportunity was given to him to examine the witnesses or to cross examine the witnesses on which the management was relying upon.
As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncement, instead of quashing the impugned order, this Court thinks it fit and proper to remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (Respondent No. 2) to examine the matter afresh regarding verification of certificates of the petitioner from the School in question, If it is found that the certificate was issued by the management of the school genuinely, order for reinstatement of the petitioner in service be passed after quashment of the impugned order issued vide memo no. 226/sa., dated 20.08.2015, under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
Needless to say if order of dismissal is quashed and set aside, petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/