Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The Writ Petition No. 42374 of 1997, filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 17.12.1997 and the suspension order dated 6.12.1997 was quashed as no departmental enquiry against the petitioner was pending.

5. It appears that prior to passing the above order by High Court there was already a confidential intimation by one Chief Engineer (Karmik) to on another Chief Engineer of Irrigation Department of the records that there were complaints which arose suspicion about the credibility of all Seenchpal/Seenchpal Parivekshak as many of them have managed such appointments by forging and fabricating documents of initial appointment orders. These records/documents were to be scrutinised thoroughly because by such forgery the State Government has been defrauded affecting State Exchequer and if necessary, the First Information Report (F.I.R.) were to be lodged in such scandal for taking legal action against them. In reference to the records of petitioner another order dated 23.1.1998 was passed by the Executive Engineer placing the petitioner under suspension on the following charges :

19. It is also relevant to note that in AIR 1994 SC 2166, Krishan Yadav and another v. State of Haryana and Ors., where the selection of Taxation Inspectors was cancelled because the selection process was stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, therefore, cancellation of the entire selection was upheld and the plea of innocence of selectees found not tenable and selectees were not required to repay salary and perks. It was observed in Krishan Yadav (supra), as below:-

"As regards the selection made without interview, fake and ghost interview, tempering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery, an inference that all was motivated by extraneous considerations can be drawn. The entire selection, thus, is arbitrary and is liable to be set-aside. The plea that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others in not applicable to such cases. The effect of setting-aside the selection would mean the selectees will have no right to go to the office. Normally, they will have to repay the entire salary and perks which they have received from the said office. The Court however refused to order repayment in this case."

23. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I, find that in view of the serious allegations against the selection grave doubt has been raised with regard to the selection, appointment and alleged involvement of forgery on the part of the petitioner, although the order dated 20.11.1998 is not legally sustainable for lack of providing opportunity of natural hearing, therefore, it is directed that before the petitioner is permitted to join the post a decision is to be taken by the Competent Authority on issues raised after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the above I direct the Chief Engineer of Anusandhan Avam Niyojan, Jal Sansadhan Prakhand, Varanasi to issue a notice to the petitioner regarding the allegation against the selection and alleged forgery in the appointment and after considering the records, documents and earlier enquiry and explanation and material submitted by the petitioner take a proper decision in the matter. If the petitioner wants oral hearing he may be allowed to do so and if petitioner gives only written statement submission that would be treated to be sufficient that he has been heard properly. The petitioner's continuance to the post and providing other benefits will depend upon the decision to be taken by the Chief Engineer of the above department. The Chief Engineer will issue proper notice to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and after receiving the explanation from the petitioner after hearing the petitioner, after providing opportunity of hearing or after considering the written submission of the petitioner shall pass final order within a period of six months from today.