Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic ... on 9 January, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2462 Court No. - 17 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9494 of 2023 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3 and 5.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 17.10.2023 whereby petitioner's appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher has been cancelled terminating him from service.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 14.09.2009 in the Primary School concerned after having been selected and undergoing training. It is submitted that subsequently he was also promoted on the post of Head Master but thereafter certain allegations were levelled that petitioner had procured appointment on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and an inquiry thereupon was instituted alongwith lodging of FIR. It is submitted that by means of impugned order, petitioner's initial appointment has been cancelled terminating him from service without following the due process of law of providing opportunity of hearing and without following the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 particularly Rule 7 framed thereunder.
4. It is also submitted that impugned order has been based only on a report submitted by the Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi which allegedly in its report dated 09.10.2023 has stated that petitioner's mark-sheet etc. are unavailable with the University.
5. It is submitted that the entire impugned order is based only on the report dated 09.10.2023 issued by the aforesaid University but neither a copy of the same was provided to petitioner nor was he permitted to file any reply there against. It is therefore submitted that since impugned order has been passed without adhering to principles of natural justice, the same required to be interfered with.
6. Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the petitioner's documents were verified from the University concerned at the request of petitioner himself. The University thereafter vide report dated 09.10.2023 has verified the fact that petitioner's documents are in fact forged and therefore the impugned order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to him. It is submitted that since the matter pertains only to cancellation of appointment on the ground of production of forged documents at the time of appointment, the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 are not required to be followed.
7. Learned counsel for opposite parties has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
"(I.) State of M.P. & Ors. Versus Shyama Pardhi & Ors. reported in (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 118.
(II.) Manjul Kumar versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in [2021 (10) ADJ 450] (III.) Dhirendra Singh & Ors. versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1427/2017.
(IV.) Munni Rani versus State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary Basic Education & Ors. reported in WWW. LiveLaw.IN passed in Service Single No.15737 of 2021."
8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for opposite parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 17.10.2023, it transpires that initially on the allegation of petitioner having obtained appointment through forged and fabricated documents, an opportunity to give reply to the said allegation was provided to petitioner which was also replied to by him in which he has clearly stated that the Sampoorna Nand Sanskrit University should be required to verify the documents which had been submitted by petitioner at the time of his appointment. It is in pursuance of such a request that documents were verified by the University which in its report dated 09.10.2023 has indicated that the documents submitted by petitioner in fact pertained to some other candidate.
9. However a reading of impugned order does not indicate that a copy of report dated 09.10.2023 was ever provided to petitioner or that he was at any time granted any opportunity to rebut the aforesaid report which is the basis of the impugned order. It is therefore evident that principles of natural justice have not been adhered to while passing the impugned order.
10. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for opposite parties are concerned, in the case of Shyama Pardhi (supra), the judgment was rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the basis of admission made by learned counsel for parties. With due respect, the aforesaid judgment is clearly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the case where learned counsel for petitioner is denying the submission of forged and fabricated documents.
11. Similarly in the case of Manjul Kumar (supra), the affidavits and certificates filed against the delinquent employee were disbelieved by this Court on the ground that he did not file any rebuttal to the aforementioned documents which were placed on record by the employer. Clearly the aforesaid case does not have any applicability due to the aforesaid fact. In the case of Dhirendra Singh (supra), again it is indicated that the delinquent employee admitted in his application made for securing appointment that he had in fact annexed incorrect mark-sheet. The three aforesaid judgments are clearly based on admission made by delinquent employee and would therefore not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case where any wrong doing is clearly denied.
12. On the contrary in the case of Dhirendra Singh (supra), it is indicated that even after the delinquent employee was charged with securing appointment on the basis forged mark-sheet, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him.
13. In the case of Munni Rani (supra) again, the judgment has been rendered on the ground that despite notice having been issued to petitioner therein, he did not offer any explanation against the allegation and in fact had never mentioned in her application for appointment that she belonged to any particular reserved category. The aforesaid facts also distinguish the said judgment.
14. In the case of Manjul Kumar (supra), it is indicated as follows:
"12. It follows that when a candidate is found to have put forth a false claim on the strength of forged and manufactured documents and obtained appointment, it would be a negation of the rule of law to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect that individual. Societal good lies in ensuring probity. That is the only manner in which the sanctity of the system can be preserved. The legal system cannot be seen as an avenue to support those who make untrue claims based on forged educational documents."
15. It is therefore quite evident that once a delinquent employee is found to have put-forth a false claim on the strength of forged and manufactured documents and has obtained appointment in terms thereof, he was necessarily be required to be removed from service. However the important aspect in all such proceedings is to verify the allegations which have been levelled against the delinquent employee and to follow the principles of natural justice pertaining to examining the veracity of such allegations which have been made.
16. Necessarily in case of cancellation of appointment, the civil consequence would be termination of service of a delinquent employee and therefore all care should be taken by the employer to verify and substantiate allegations which have been levelled against the delinquent employee by careful examination of all material facts and evidences and by providing ample opportunity of hearing and rebuttal to such a delinquent employee.
17. In the present case, such a course of action has not been followed by the opposite parties inasmuch as the report dated 09.10.2023 which forms the basis of impugned order was never provided to the petitioner nor was any rebuttal or reply sought from him in that regard.
18. In view of aforesaid, impugned order being against the principles of natural justice is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioner from the stage of filing of reply to the notice. The report dated 09.10.2023 submitted by the University shall also be provided to petitioner in order to enable him to rebut the findings recorded therein. Opposite parties shall take a final decision with regard to petitioner's continuance or otherwise within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before concerned authority. For purposes of such an inquiry, petitioner shall be reinstated in service.
19. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 9.1.2024 Subodh/-