Himachal Pradesh High Court
Neetu Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 22 June, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.850 of 2023.
.
Date of decision: 22.06.2023.
Neetu Devi .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
.....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Kapoor,
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan,
Advocate General with Mr.
Yashwardhan Chauhan,
Senior Additional
Advocate General, Mr.
Ramakant Sharma, Ms.
Sharmila Patial,
Additional Advocate
Generals, Ms. Priyanka
Chauhan, Deputy
Advocate General and Mr.
Rajat Chauhan, Law
Officer, for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Vandana, Advocate
vice Mr. Sanjay Jaswal,
Advocate, for respondent
No.4
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS
2
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
.
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
"i. That quash the Annexure P-6, passed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner. ii. That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Cook cum Helper where she has already served, in Government School r Sanaurath."
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook-cum-
Helper under Mid-Day-Meal Scheme and joined as such on 07.01.2023. However, her services came to be terminated on 13.02.2023 on the basis of a complaint filed by respondent No.4 to the effect that the petitioner had produced a fake experience certificate.
3. According to the petitioner, the official-
respondents neither issued a show-cause notice nor associated her in the inquiry and, therefore, their action being in violation of principles of natural justice in terminating the services of the petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS 34. Private respondent has also filed separate reply, but going by the reply filed by official respondents, the same .
need not be referred to.
5. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply wherein it has been averred that respondent No.4 feeling aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner made a representation before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, alleging therein that the petitioner had produced a fake experience certificate before the Selection Committee. The S.D.M. forwarded the representation to respondent No.2-Block Elementary Education Officer, Fatehpur, for inquiry and report.
6. Respondent No.2, in turn, conducted an inquiry on 10.02.2023 in Government Primary School, Sanourth, in the presence of President, School Management Committee, Secretary Government Primary School as well as in the presence of the petitioner and respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 examined the documents of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 annexed with the respective applications.
7. Respondent No.2 also examined the experience certificate issued by the Head Teacher as well as Royal Residency Hotel from where the petitioner had procured the experience certificate and found that the earlier Cook-cum-
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS 4Helper was regular in her duty till her retirement and, therefore, respondent No.4 had not marked her attendance .
in the register. On inquiry, the petitioner admitted that she had cooked meals only for two days, that too, as a reliever.
8. It is on such basis that respondent No.2 found the experience certificate issued by the Head Teacher to be contrary to the records of attendance register and held that the petitioner could not have been awarded any marks for experience on the basis of such certificate.
9. Further, during the course of the inquiry on 10.02.2023, when the petitioner was asked by respondent No.2 regarding the location of the Royal Residency, name of the owner and Manager of the said Royal Residency, how many rooms were there in the said Royal Residency and for how long she had stayed in the Royal Residency. The petitioner, however, could not answer any of these queries.
She rather stated that she did not know, who had issued the experience certificate and further admitted that she never visited the said Royal Residency and never undergone any training from Royal Residency.
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS 510. It is on the basis of this inquiry that respondent No.2 found the experience certificate issued by Royal .
Residency to be not genuine.
11. If that is not enough, respondents No.1 and 2 have also placed on record copy of the inquiry report annexed with the reply as Annexure R-I.
12. In such circumstances, we really fail to appreciate as to how the petitioner would blatantly urge that no inquiry was conducted by the respondents or there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner clearly is guilty of having suppressed the material facts and would ordinarily have been liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. But, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is from a poor strata of the society, we refrain from doing so. However, with stern warning that in case the petitioner indulges in such kind of misadventure, in future, the Court may not so magnanimous so as to let go her scot-free.
13. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to ::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS 6 bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 22nd June, 2023.
(krt)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 26/06/2023 20:31:09 :::CIS