Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) By Memo No. 1217 dated 05.07.2004 issued by the Chairman, District Primary School Council to the Sub Inspector of School, where request was made to obtain the marksheet of the Madhyamik Examination of the petitioner for the purpose of further investigation.

(vi) The Chairman, District Primary School Council, Purulia issued show cause notice on 12.10.2004 asking the petitioner to file reply on the submission of the false marksheet of the Madhymaik Examination.

(vii) In reply, the petitioner states that the marksheet submitted by the petitioner is genuine and correct.

By the impugned order, the service of the petitioner is terminated having obtained by practicing fraud in submitting the false marksheet. Mr. Amit Prakash Lahiri, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the authority has passed an order of termination of service without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner never submitted any false marksheet and as such the impugned order is not sustainable. He further contends that there is a statutory rule framed in exercise of the power under Section 106 and Section 60 of the West Bengal Primary School Education Act, 1973 vide notification No.906-SE (Pry) dated 9th July, 2001 which provides the procedure for imposing penalties including the dismissal from service. Lastly, he contends that impugned memo having issued without complying the provisions contained statutory rules is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has submitted the false marksheet of the Madhyamik Examination and has committed fraud at the time of taking employment. He further submits that the fraudulent act does not confer any right on the petitioner including the right to be heard and is not obligatory on the part of the authority to comply the statutory rules.

Having considered the respective submissions, it is undisputed that the petitioner after having found eligible was issued the letter of appointment. It is also undisputed that the petitioner thereafter joined the service on 26th December 2003. Subsequently, it is apprehended by the appointing authority relating to the genuinity of the purported marksheet and, thereafter, issued the instruction to the Sub Inspector of School to take steps for the purpose of verification of the said marksheet. After having found that the marksheet which was submitted by the petitioner to be in genuine, a show cause notice was issued to offer the reply. In reply, the only statement made by the petitioner is that the marksheet which is submitted is correct and genuine.

It is not conceived that the authorities who were passing an order of dismissal from service on the ground of fraud is exonerated from recording the particulars or elements of fraud in the impugned order.

In the instant case, the authorities have found that the petitioner has committed fraud in submitting the false marksheet but have not recorded its satisfaction about the marksheet submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment and other particulars by which it can be safely concluded that the marksheet of the petitioner is not genuine. In absence of any particulars in the impugned order, this court is not in a position to opine conclusively on the commission of fraud.