Jharkhand High Court
Mina Kumari Sah vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 5 May, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009
Mina Kumari Sah ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
... ... Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009
Mina Kumari Sah ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, Advocate [in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009] Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, Advocate [W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009]
---
13/05.05.2022 Heard Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Arguments of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to order passed in W.P.(S) No. 573 of 2006 dated 01.05.2008 read with order in contempt case (civil) no. 438 of 2008 dated 21.04.2009. He also submits that there is an allegation of fraud and taking appointment by impersonation so far as the petitioner is concerned and it has been alleged that the petitioner has taken appointment in place of Nina Kumari Sah (present respondent no. 6).
3. He submits that pursuant to order passed in the writ proceedings being W.P.(S) No. 573 of 2006 disposed of on 01.05.2008 notices were issued to the petitioner as well as private respondent no. 6 and the order-sheet indicates that the private respondent no. 6 never appeared pursuant to such notice to produce her original records and satisfy the authority about her genuineness and ultimately an order was passed closing the proceedings and rejecting the complaint of the private respondent no. 6. He further submits that after the order was passed on 21.04.2009 in the contempt 2 proceedings being contempt case (civil) no. 438 of 2008, the authority proceeded with the matter again and another order dated 16.07.2009 was passed which was in favour of the private respondent no. 6. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the order dated 16.07.2009, had directed the District Superintendent of Education to initiate a proceeding by framing a charge against the petitioner in connection with the alleged fraud and impersonation, but the District Superintendent of Education, without initiating any proceeding, has passed the orders as contained in Annexure- 12 an 13 whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated and in her place, the private respondent no. 6 has been given the appointment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the perusal of the impugned order reflects that the District Superintendent of Education was of the view that the Deputy Commissioner has already determined the issue and therefore, no proceeding was required to be initiated and accordingly, even the termination of the petitioner by virtue of the impugned order is in violation of the order dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He has also submitted that the petitioner was appointed as back as in the year 1988 and the complaint by the private respondent was filed only in the year 2004.
Arguments of the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009
5. The learned counsel has submitted that in this proceeding, the order dated 16.07.2009 (Annexure- 9) passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 5 of 2008-09 is under challenge. He has raised a ground that at one stage, the Deputy Commissioner found that the appointment of the petitioner is correct and on the same set of evidence, the deputy commissioner raised suspicion on the certificate and appointment of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel has further submitted that the decision in favour of the petitioner was taken on 24.07.2008 itself as contained in Annexure- 7, but the respondent Deputy Commissioner, vide another order dated 16.07.2009, illegally directed the District Superintendent of Education to frame charge against the petitioner by initiating a departmental proceeding and consequently, the impugned order dated 16.07.2009 is illegal and is fit to be set-aside.
3Arguments on behalf of the respondents
7. The learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner have referred to the counter-affidavit filed in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009 and have referred to paragraph 24 wherein it has been stated that charge was already framed against the petitioner vide Memo No. 418 dated 24.03.2006, but she never gave any reply to the said charge and before termination of her service, an opportunity was given to her to reply , but she never bothered to say anything in the matter.
8. The learned counsels for the respondents have fairly submitted that the memo no. 418 dated 24.03.2006 has not been filed alongwith the counter-affidavit. The learned counsels have further submitted that one First Information Report was also instituted against the petitioner which has been brought on record by filing supplementary-affidavit by the petitioner bearing Sahebganj Sadar Nagar P.S. Case No. 178 of 2011 dated 14.10.2011.
9. However, during the course of arguments, it is not in dispute from the side of the respondents also that the orders at Annexure-12 and 13 in W.P.(S) No. 5126 of 2009 have been passed pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.07.2009 and the same is not a result of any departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
10. The respondents have not brought on record the inquiry report or the final outcome of the departmental proceedings or the result of the charge which was framed vide memo no. 418 dated 24.03.2006. No rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed in W.P.(S) No. 3758 of 2009.
Rejoinder argument on behalf of the petitioner
11. In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for quashing of the criminal case being Cr.M.P. No. 331 of 2012 wherein certain interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner, however, the same has been dismissed for non-prosecution by this court on 14.03.2022. A copy of the said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has filed an application for restoration of the Cr.M.P. No. 331 of 2012 which is pending.
412. Arguments are concluded.
13. Post this case for judgement on 06.06.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj