Jharkhand High Court
Mewati Rani Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 12 August, 2016
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 7476 of 2011
-------
Mewati Rani Singh, widow of late Uma Charan Singh, resident of Lohiya Park,
Kokar, P.O-Kokar, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O &
P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2.Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3.Director (Secondary Education), Directorate of Secondary Education,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi. .... .... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, J.C to G.A
------
C.A.V. On 12.04.2016 Pronounced on 12 /08/2016
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for
quashing memo dated 08.09.2010, whereby the services of the petitioner has
been terminated under the provisions of Rule -55 of the Civil Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1949.
2. The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.07.1980
inviting applications for the post of Dance Teacher, amongst others, the
petitioner applied and after following due process of selection, she joined in her
post in Girls Primary Teachers Education College, Ratu on 01.07.1981. It has
been contended that on completion of ten years of continuous service, when the
petitioner did not get the benefits of Time Bound promotion, she made
representations before the respondents-authorites. But when the said request did
2
not evoke any response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing
W.P. (S) No. 6964 of 2006. It has been submitted that in July, 2006, the then
Principal, District Institute of Education and Training College, Ratu, being the
Drawing and Disbursing Officer, purported to have declined the petitioner to
mark attendance, hence, she could not get salary of 12 days in July, 2006.
However, thereafter the petitioner was getting regular salary till December,
2006. Thereafter, again salary for the months of January and February, 2007 was
withheld without communicating any reason. Again the petitioner started getting
salary since March, 2007. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the salary of the petitioner
was stopped in the month of April, 2007 by the then Principal, District Institute
of Education and Training College, Ratu. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted
representation before the Principal vide letter dated 28.05.2007, which was
rejected vide letter dated 04.06.2007 by the Principal. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred a writ application, being W.P. (S) No. 4148 of 2007, to
release and pay arrears of salary, which was disposed of vide order dated
28.04.2010with a direction to the concerned authorities to release and pay forthwith the arrears of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, vide letter dated 07.06.2010, the respondent no. 3 while forwarding the copy of enquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi dated 10.02.2010 asked the petitioner to submit her 2nd Show Cause. The petitioner on 19.07.2010 requested the respondents to provide her the copies of the entire documents relating to the proceeding as well as evidences collected therein in order to enable her to file an effective show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged enquiry has been shown to have been held but on bare perusal of the enquiry report, it would be evident that the same was held ex-parte and even the department failed to 3 produce any evidence, much less any oral or documentary evidence in support of the alleged charges. Ultimately by impugned order dated 08.09.2010 the services of the petitioner has been terminated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of report of the C.B.I, who has given its finding of 28 years stale charge, which is bad in law, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board as reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636. Drawing the attention of the Court towards enquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is based on the C.B.I enquiry report wherein it has been stated that non-issuance of appointment letter from the issue register itself shows that the appointment of the petitioner is forged and fake, which is bad in law, as only non-issuance of appointment letter from issue register would not make the appointment of the petitioner fake and forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the enquiry report it would reveal that the enquiry was taken-up ex-parte and even the department failed to produce any evidence, much less any oral or documentary evidence in support of the alleged charges. It is well-settled principles of law that non- supply of foundational documents and non-examination of witnesses, vitiates the enquiry. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.
4. Controverting the averments made in the writ applications, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that some teachers including the petitioner were illegally appointed in various government schools as Assistant Teachers. The matter of their illegal appointment was referred to C.B.I for 4 enquiry, wherein it was pointed out that no records related to the appointment was made available to C.B.I. It has further been submitted that before termination of her services, departmental enquiry was conducted and it was found that the appointment letter of petitioner was fake. It has further been submitted that the Inspectress of School-cum-Deputy Director, Bihar Patna has informed vide letter dated 03.03.2009 that her appointment letter has not been issued from Office Issue Register. It has further been submitted that Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi also made enquiry into the matter and found the petitioner's appointment illegal, which is evident from the report submitted vide letter dated 10.02.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of above enquiry report, a second show cause was served upon the petitioner, to which she replied, which on being found unsatisfactory, her services was terminated vide letter dated 08.09.2010.
5. After bestowing my thoughtful consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate foundational facts to call for any interference in the impugned order of termination dated 08.09.2010 due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:
(i).In the matter of illegal appointment of some of the teachers, including the petitioner, appointed in the erstwhile State of Bihar, the matter was referred to C.B.I for enquiry and as per the C.B.I report no records relating to appointment of petitioner has been made available to C.B.I, as disclosed in the counter affidavit. When the very appointment of the petitioner is shrouded with a cloud of suspicion, obviously the respondents-authorities thought it proper to enquire into the matter by way of departmental enquiry 5 and in the departmental enquiry, it came into surface that the appointment of the petitioner was forged and fake and appointment letter was not issued by the competent authority.
(ii).Moreover, from the information received from the Inspectress of School-
cum-Deputy Director, Bihar Patna vide letter dated 03.03.2009 it transpires that her appointment letter has not been issued from Office Issue Register, which apparently proves that the appointment of the petitioner as forged one. Furthermore, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi also made enquiry into the matter and found the petitioner's appointment illegal, which is evident from report dated 10.02.2010, as per Annexure D to the counter affidavit.
Therefore, from the aforesaid analysis, it can safely be concluded without any doubt or debate that the initial appointment of the petitioner was fake one.
(iii).It is well settled principles of law that fraud vitiates everything. In the instant case basing on the enquiry report a show show notice was issued to the petitioner and after careful consideration of the reply to the show cause, services of the petitioner has been terminated and there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of termination.
6. In the cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, stated herein above, the impugned order of termination dated 08.09.2010 does not warrant interference by this Court, hence, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-