Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 26 February, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 177 of 2023
Suresh Kumar Singh ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
: Mr. Suman Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
---
th
09/26 February 2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Arguments of the petitioner
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that primarily the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of appeal by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure-16/1 dated 08.12.2022 and also the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dated 11.04.2022 annexure-14.
3. While giving the foundational facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was 14 years of age, the petitioner was adopted by Rameshwar Singh and his biological father was the full brother of Rameshwar Singh. The deed of adoption was registered subsequently on 25.01.1985 and the ex-employee of the respondent i.e Rameshwar Singh declared the petitioner as his dependent in his service excerpts also. The learned counsel submits that sometime in the year 1988, Rameshwar Singh applied for voluntary retirement on account of medical unfitness and as per the provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement, the petitioner was offered employment. The petitioner had taken his Class-X examination in the year 1985 and all formalities for taking the exams were completed before adoption wherein he had declared the name of his biological father.
4. The application for the appointment of the petitioner in terms of NCWA on account of the voluntary retirement of Rameshwar Singh on medical grounds was filed by the petitioner on 03.05.1989 and ultimately the petitioner was granted appointment and by this time the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years. The petitioner passed Class-X examination in the year 1985, Class- XII examination in the year 1987, and passed his Bachelor of Arts in the year 2 1989. In the year 1993, the petitioner was issued the College Leaving Certificate. As per Class-X certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.12.1969.
5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner continued to work and on 8/9.06.2016, the petitioner was issued a show cause as contained in Annexure- 4 to which the petitioner responded and ultimately charge-sheet dated 1/2.02.2017 as contained in Annexure-5 was issued to the petitioner wherein two allegations were made against the petitioner; (i) the deed of adoption as son by Shri Rameshwar Singh was signed on 25.01.1985 and on that date the petitioner had already crossed the legal age (fifteen years) for valid adoption, which makes the petitioner's adoption void as per Clause 10(iv) of the Adoption Act 1956; (b) The educational certificates obtained by the petitioner in the year 1987, 1989 and 1993 after the adoption bears the name of the biological father of the petitioner, namely, Ram Lakhan Singh. With these allegations, it was alleged that the available records established that the petitioner cheated the company and managed to get employment in CCL through an invalid and pseudo-adoption deed. The petitioner responded to the same vide Annexure-6 dated 09.02.2017 and denied the charges.
6. The learned counsel has referred to the show cause reply dated 09.02.2017 and has submitted that Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was specifically referred to in the show cause reply which deals with presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption. He has also submitted that the reason for maintaining the name of the biological father in the certificates of educational qualification has been given on internal page 6 of the show cause reply by stating that the petitioner was registered for appearing in Class-X before the date of adoption and as such the name of biological father appeared in his certificates.
7. The learned counsel has submitted that the inquiry report was submitted. The findings of the inquiry officer are from running page No. 141 of the writ records. The learned counsel has submitted that the arguments of the petitioner were not accepted by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer recorded a finding that the petitioner continued to maintain dual identity as son of his biological father also. The authorities have recorded that any adoption made in contravention of the provision of the Adoption Act is null and void ab initio 3 and that the petitioner could not prove any custom or usage applicable to him that permitted adoption beyond 15 years of age.
8. The learned counsel submits that the second show cause was issued to the petitioner and ultimately the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal. The learned counsel submits that the disciplinary authority also recorded that the appointment file could not be placed during the inquiry as the same was missing and this itself created reasonable doubt to a prudent mind which led to irresistible inference that the file was misplaced capriciously to conceal the irregularity. The learned counsel has submitted that there was no such charge against the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner filed appeal and the appeal was also dismissed interalia by referring to some legal opinion wherein it was opined that the deed of adoption does not create any valid adoption, firstly for the reason that the petitioner could not have been taken adoption on 25.01.1985 as he had already crossed the age of 15 years on that day, secondly as per his own showing, even after several years, the petitioner continued declaring biological father as his father in all the documents and the educational certificates which were obtained in the subsequent years i.e. 1987, 1989 and 1993.
10. The learned counsel submits that both the impugned orders are ex-facie perverse, since, the date of registration of the adoption deed is not the date of adoption. The date of adoption was preceded by the date of registration. He has further submitted that the continuation of the biological father of the petitioner in the educational certificates was well explained. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The document based on which the petitioner was taken into employment is the adoption deed. The petitioner had worked for more than 32 years before he was dismissed from service.
11. The learned counsel has also referred to Section 31 of the Special Relief Act which deals with cancellation of instruments. He submits that no steps were taken for the cancellation of the adoption deed. The adoption deed continues to be legal, valid and enforceable.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Ramti Devi vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 1 SCC 198, paragraph 2 to impress upon the 4 validity of the adoption deed. The learned counsel has further referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 342 to submit that there is no justification to wake up after long years to make an allegation that is not based on any suppression, misrepresentation, or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that when the adoptive father himself disclosed that the petitioner was duly adopted by him, there was no question of challenging the adoption deed itself.
Arguments of the respondents
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had cheated and managed to get an appointment based on an invalid and pseudo-adoption deed. Since the petitioner was more than 15 years old on the date of execution of the adoption deed, the same itself is void ab initio and cannot be relied upon by the petitioner.
14. The learned counsel has placed the adoption deed to submit that the adoption was made to seek employment with the respondents. He has also submitted that in the registered deed, the age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 14 years which is also incorrect if the age of the petitioner concerning his clause-X certificate is taken into consideration.
15. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 719 of 2015 decided on 20th September 2016 reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhr. 2695 (Gopi Ram vs. CCL), paragraphs 7 and 8, and has submitted that the employment secured through fraud is vitiated. He has further relied upon the judgment reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 (State of Karnataka & Anr. vs. N. Gangaraj), paragraphs Nos. 12, 13, and 15 to submit that the scope of judicial review is very limited. There is no scope for reconsideration of materials on record and coming to a different finding once there are concurrent findings recorded by two authorities. He has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 (R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala & Others), paragraphs 16, 17, and 19 to submit that long tenure of service is irrelevant and in the said case, there was 27 years of service. He has submitted that in case of giving false certificates, there is no protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 332 of 2020, paragraph 12, 13 and 14 to submit 5 that in case of fraud/misrepresentation/impersonation, no relief can be given to the employee. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2013) 9 SCC 363 (Devendra Kumar vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others), paragraphs 12 to 16 to submit that the said judgment deals with the appointment obtained by misrepresentation and also the scope of judicial review.
16. Arguments concluded.
17. Post this case on 08.04.2024 for judgment.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul